Is "Terrorism" the New "Treason"?

If I were ever in any doubt whether my decision to leave the Republican Party was sound, I was given three reasons this week to rest assured that my decision was the right one, and also the smart one.

First, there is the so-called coverage of the Fort Hood shootings on 5 November that has continued throughout this week. There are a lot of things about this that bug me, and I’m not really sure where to start, but here goes. Almost immediately after the shooting (and just as predictably and transparently), the “conservative” media began calling Maj. Hasan a “terrorist” and what happened at Fort Hood an act of “terrorism.” Now, I’m not the first one to point this out,[1] but what happened at Fort Hood was simply not terrorism. There is no evidence that he was part of any organized group whose aim was to influence the civilian population of the United States to pressure the government to change its policy, his (possible) communication with suspected radicals for overtly religious purposes notwithstanding. Refusing to label Maj. Hasan a “terrorist” does not in any way diminish his crime, nor does calling what he did “terrorism” make the deaths of his victims[2] any less senseless. This is not the first time this year a shooting occurred on an Army base. But nobody was calling “terrorism” when it happened the first time. Apparently it is only “terrorism” when a Muslim is involved, at least according to the conservative media and the talk shows. Others, however, are focusing on the more pertinent issues. A British commentator living in Europe aptly remarked that,

“What Hasan knew -- as everyone in Texas knows -- is that Texas has sane laws concerning the carrying of concealed weapons. Texans are free to be well-armed, that is to say, well-defended. If Hasan had tried to shoot soldiers at a Pizza Hut or McDonald's, he would have been taken out as soon as he'd got off his first shot, maybe not by a soldier, but certainly by a civilian.”[3]

Reading this comment by a British citizen caused me to reflect for a moment on the sheer insanity of the current state of firearms legislation in the U.K., and inspired me to study the British political system generally. Aside from the gun laws themselves, there is a lot to be said for the British system. So many aspects of our own political system that we take for granted, are still taken for what they really are, in the U.K. For example, the two-party system. In Britain, the two-party system evolved by gradually understanding those who were not in power, and who disagreed with the government’s policies, as the Loyal Opposition. The recognition that “parties” could exist who disagreed with the policies of the various ministries of Parliament (who represent the Monarch), but who nevertheless could be counted as loyal to the Sovereign, was the basis of what later became the two-party system. Likewise, our own custom of having the President sign bills into law is a carry-over of the doctrine of “Royal Assent,” i.e., that the Parliament could not make law without the agreement of the Sovereign. On the other hand, two areas where our Founding Fathers sought to distance themselves from the English tradition was in their extremely restricted use of the word “treason,” and in their understanding of military power (which directly bears on their understanding of what it means to “bear arms”). Let me deal with the second point first. George Washington is as good an example of any here:

“Hence likewise they [‘every part of the Country’] will avoid the necessity of those overgrown Military establishments, which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty. In this sense it is, that your Union ought to be considered as a main prop to your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.”[4]

For Washington, and for the Founding Fathers in general, the right of citizens to bear arms was the surest means of protecting themselves against tyranny, as their own recent experience during the Revolution had proven. The Second Amendment itself is based on the 1689 English Bill of Rights, which acknowledged the right of every Protestant subject to “have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”[5] If anyone doubts that the intent of this legislation was to allow citizens to protect themselves against a government gone tyrannical, provided of course that they had already gone through the other proper channels of appeal, i.e., the courts, then appeal to Parliament, then petitioning the Monarch, let us remember that this legislation was adopted one year after English Protestants forcefully overthrew a Roman Catholic king (James II) who had acted tyrannically against his subjects. The meaning couldn’t be clearer.

The Founding Fathers did not like standing armies because they believed they could be used as supports for – or means of establishing – tyranny. A “right to bear arms” was necessary in part because it allowed citizen militias to be formed during a time of crisis that would in turn make the creation of a standing army “for the common defense” unnecessary.[6] In fact, Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution actually forbids the prolonged maintenance of a standing army in peacetime, but I guess conservatives don't think that part of the Constitution is worth "conserving." In light of this history, it is surely ironic that the denial of Second Amendment rights to soldiers living on a U.S. military base has resulted in a situation that not once, but twice this year has allowed a crazed gunman free reign to commit brutal and murderous acts against our troops.

Now, on to the word “treason.” The Founding Fathers didn’t like the word, and they liked the idea even less. Article 3 of our Constitution makes it about as difficult to convict a person of Treason against the United States as it is to convict a person of a capital crime in Jewish law. And the Founding Fathers wanted it that way. In the British system, “treason” constituted an act of disloyalty to the Sovereign, and the Founding Fathers did not want to create a government that would allow for American citizens to be executed for opposing the government after they had just won a hard-fought war against a government that wanted to carry out that very punishment against the Patriots. And it seems to me, that in practice, the only thing required to convict one of treason was the mere accusation of it. Or at least that is how it has been portrayed. One phenomenon that is well understood in sociology is that when certain social structures or ideas get suppressed over a period of time, they tend to reemerge later in another, more insidious form. Is it possible that the word “terrorism” has replaced the word “treason” and taken over its functions and characteristics? If Maj. Hasan had opened fire on the same group of people, only this time not on a military base, but in a civilian marketplace, would that have been terrorism? And what if, instead of military personnel, Maj. Hasan had shot civilians in said marketplace? Would that have been terrorism? What if Maj. Hasan had robbed the grocer in the marketplace, rather than killing the people in it? Would that have been terrorism? Taking the word “terrorism” and trying to apply it to every crime in which a Muslim is involved, whether or not that particular Muslim has anything to do with a known terrorist organization, is the first step down the road toward institutionalized prejudice. If we keep thinking of the issue like this, ten years from now a guy who robs a gas station will go on trial for treason just because he happened to be Muslim. That is not the kind of country we were supposed to have. We need to get away from umbrella words like “terrorism” or “Al-Qaeda,”[7] and start thinking about these issues more critically and less emotionally. Now, in theological terms, as a Christian I have very little sympathy with Islam. The one they call a "great prophet" is the one we recognize to be God Incarnate. That being said, I have no doubt that there are many Muslims whose righteousness would put that of numerous Christians to shame. I am also frequently appalled at the abysmal ignorance of Islam displayed by both the Right and the Left in this country. Islam is every bit as diverse as Christianity is, and the two main sects in Islam, the Sunni and the Shi'a, are as different from each other as Protestants are from Roman Catholics. So one cannot take the mere fact that Maj. Hasan is Muslim, and then try to judge his character on that basis. Such arguments are circular (because they assume the very thing they attempt to prove), and they miss the point. Attempts to cast Maj. Hasan as the victim instead miss the point as well, and quite badly. Maj. Hasan is of course responsible for his actions, and the blame for them lie first of all with him. But there is a larger issue to consider here, and it has nothing to do with religion or terrorism. The real point of all this is not that Maj. Hasan is a Muslim; the point is that in all probability the Army royally screwed up here,[8] and nothing could dishonor the memory of the victims at Fort Hood more than for the military to make no changes to its policies concerning the mental health of American solders, or the maintenance of safety on U.S. bases here and abroad. This also takes us back to George Washington's fears about the maintenance of a permanent military establishment (and this is not intended disrespectfully toward the individuals who happen to serving in the military at the present time): we should hardly be surprised after having spent billions upon billions of dollars for decades on end maintaining an organization whose sole purpose is to be a killing machine, that such a machine can and often does produce psychopaths who are capable of killing without remorse. If they can murder their fellow soldiers without batting an eye, they can murder the very civilians they've sworn to protect, too, and that is exactly the kind of situation (albeit on a larger scale) that the Founding Fathers feared. This is not to say that there are not many fine and respectable men and women currently serving in our armed forces by any means, but only to point out that these kinds of problems are intrinsic to such institutions and can never be divorced from them.

Second, it turns out the Republican health care bill includes provisions to fund abortions, too.[9] This is yet another example of the fact that Republicans get elected by support from pro-life conservatives, who in turn get stabbed in the back almost immediately once said Republicans get in office. (A partial exception to this trend was George W. Bush, as far as the abortion issue is concerned, though not much else.)

Third, Fox News outright lied about the size of rally held in opposition to the pending health care legislation, a fact that we now know about thanks to Jon Stewart.[10]

So, since these three events have unfolded toward the end of last week and into this week, the feeling that I have done the right thing by being political nonaligned has only been strengthened and confirmed.

---

[1] Steven L. Taylor, Was Hasan a Terrorist?; James Joyner, Was Fort Hood Massacre ‘Terrorism’?

[2] James Joyner, Fort Hood Fallen: Victims, Not Heroes

[3] Mary Ellen Synon, It never pays to go anywhere less than well-armed

[4] George Washington, Farewell Address

[5] English Bill of Rights (1689)

[6] Cf. Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed

[7] Peter Hitchens, The fake threat from Afghanistan, and do eagles really drop tortoises on people’s heads?

[8] Steven L. Taylor, The Most Important Element in the Hasan Story

[9] Meredith Shiner & Jonathan Allen, RNC insurance plan covers abortion

[10] Daniel Nasaw, Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart exposes Fox News’ shoddy protest coverage

To Wipe Away Every Tear at Fort Hood

I feel the need to give my two cents’ worth regarding the tragedy at Fort Hood on Thursday. I haven’t had very much time to read a significant portion of what has been published so far, so I am open to constructive correction insofar as the facts as concerned. It seems like a lot of people – around here, in any case – are making a big deal of the fact that Maj. Hasan is Muslim. Aside from the usual – and often unstated – myths that abound in this country about Islam in general, such as, (1) that most Muslims are Arabs (they aren’t), or (2) that most Arabs in this country are Muslim (they aren’t; most are Christians of either the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox variety, though Edward Said was actually Protestant), or finally, (3) that Islam is inherently violent because the Qur’an supposedly teaches that all non-Muslims should be put to the sword (it doesn’t), it is often not realized that religions involve truth claims on behalf of a deity who is supposed to be the rightful ruler of the world, so it would make a great deal of a sense for the partisans of those claims to feel the need to take up arms on occasions where it was felt that such rightful rule was being resisted, if a clear distinction is not made between the “kingdom of this world” and the kingdom (of God) belonging to the next one. On the other hand, religion is also inherently a check on violence, and this fact has been well known since the days of the Roman Republic: there have to be set times, holidays, fastings, etc., during which solemnities can be observed, sacrifices offered, prayers and blessings pronounced, and so on; activities which are simply incompatible with violence and chaos. So, to take the religions of the world and categorize them neatly into “religions of peace” on one side, and “religions of hate” or “violence” on the other, is simply absurd. Every religion carries within itself the seeds of both extremes. Now, I don’t know what Maj. Hasan’s motive was, and frankly, that is irrelevant to me, for reasons I will explain in a moment. He may very well have been motivated by his religious beliefs to do what he did (and though I find this unlikely, I am willing to be proven wrong here), but we just don’t know that right now. Yet, almost immediately after this happened, “conservative” talk show hosts were jumping all over this, claiming it was an instance of a “radical Muslim” (words which these people take to be synonyms) committing an act of “terrorism” inside the military. I am opposed to jumping to this kind of characterization of this event for two reasons. First, it’s cheap, and it’s opportunistic. Using these people’s deaths as a talking point against Muslims in general dishonors their memories. Their deaths weren’t less tragic because their killer happened to be Muslim. Second, their deaths aren’t more understandable because their killer was Muslim, either. People always feel like they need to know the “reasons” why bad things happen. If only they could know the reasons, they say, then maybe so many of the horrible things that happen would finally make some sense. And this is why people should study philosophy. Not modern philosophy, mind you, but the medieval philosophy that stemmed from St. Augustine. One of the fundamental axioms of ancient Christian ethics was that all evil acts tend toward nothingness. Does “nothing” make sense? Of course not. It’s nothing. Evil is inherently irrational because it tends toward its own destruction along with that of the good which it assaults (and indeed, Maj. Hasan was nearly killed himself during his own act of killing). There is thus no ultimate “reason” why these innocent people died, and certainly no “reasonable” explanation for it that would allow it to “make sense.” It doesn’t make any sense at all, and no amount of circumstantial details can alter that fact. It was a terrible, horrible act that merits only sorrow, not rationalization, and certainly not cheap talking points by people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

Victims of the massacre at Ft. Hood on 5 November 2009, we pray for your souls, and the souls of your families, and hope that we, with you, may find peace and eternal rest, in the kingdom that is to come, where all that is wrong will be made right again, through Christ our Lord. 

Amen

The Current Agenda

I am hoping over the next few posts to outline what it means to be a (1) Christian Social Libertarian, and, an (2) Episcopalian Thomist. Recent discussions and readings have led me back into a more "apologetic" direction, primarily regarding the biblical canon and the resurrection of Christ. Current events have also only solidified my conviction that the Republican Party is - like its Democratic counterpart - intellectually bankrupt and that an alternative vision is needed. My hope is to elaborate on this vision in a satisfactory way.

Keep Your Phones Handy This Halloween!

Signs, Shadows, and Symbols

In a recent post I discussed the inherently symbolic nature of language. After discussing the nature of Scripture on another site, I was reminded of a quotation from Aquinas:

“The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification. Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it.”[1]
 

If we broaden this a bit, it means that symbols are everywhere. Words are symbols when they stand for things, and things are symbols when they stand for other things. This certainly should help us along when considering the true nature of the sacraments. On the other hand, we can also give the relationship between signs and the things they signify a trinitarian twist: Since words are symbols, Christ the eternal Word is the Symbol of God, a Symbol in perfect unity with that which he symbolizes. So there is nothing inherent in a symbol which forbids it from being absolutely one with its referent. To assume otherwise is to assume what Bernard Lonergan called “the perceptionist myth.”[2] Against the objection that “the duality of subject and object is intrinsic to the very idea of knowledge,” Lonergan retorted that this idea “is simply false and has no basis other than imagining a person looking and the object looked at.”[3] In reality,

“The sensible in act is sense in act, and the intelligible in act is intellect in act. For the reason why we actually feel or know a thing is because our intellect or sense is actually informed by the sensible or intelligible species. And because of this only, it follows that sense or intellect is distinct from the sensible or intelligible object, since both are in potentiality. Since therefore God has nothing in Him of potentiality, but is pure act, His intellect and its object are altogether the same.”[4]
 

This gives the lie to the “correspondence theory” of truth; truth in the most fundamental sense, i.e., in God, is not similarity or conformity between subject and object, but rather “the absence of dissimilarity.”[5] Understanding knowledge along these lines drawn by Aquinas, on the basis of Aristotle, not only helps to have better philosophical underpinnings in our biblical exegesis, but also preempts a number of critiques of Christian theology that have been put forth by modern philosophy.

---

[1] Thomas Aquinas, ST Ia Q. 1, art. 10, resp.

[2] Bernard Lonergan, The Triune God: Systematics, p. 301

[3] Bernard Lonergan, The Triune God: Systematics, p. 211

[4] Thomas Aquinas, ST Ia Q. 14, art. 2, resp.

[5] Bernard Lonergan, The Triune God: Systematics, p. 303

Cool Pictures