In Memoriam

This post is to commemorate my grandfather, Rudy, who passed away on 1 February. He was a humble man of God, a family man, a man of community. May we all in his family (and he included more than just his blood relatives in his care) live up to his high example, and remember him with love and joy.

DEATH be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadfull, for, thou art not so,
For, those, whom thou think'st, thou dost overthrow,
Die not, poore death, nor yet canst thou kill me.

From rest and sleepe, which but thy pictures bee,
Much pleasure, then from thee, much more must flow,
And soonest our best men with thee doe goe,
Rest of their bones, and soules deliverie.

Thou art slave to Fate, Chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poyson, warre, and sicknesse dwell,
And poppie, or charmes can make us sleepe as well,
And better then thy stroake; why swell'st thou then;

One short sleepe past, wee wake eternally,
And death shall be no more; death, thou shalt die.

-John Donne

INTO THE WEST

'Lay down your sweet and weary head

Night is falling; you have come to journey's end

Sleep now and dream of the ones who came before

They are calling from across a distant shore

Why do you weep? What are these tears upon your face?

Soon you will see all of your fears will pass away

Safe in my arms, you're only sleeping

What can you see on the horizon?

Why do the white gulls call?

Across the Sea a pale moon rises

The ships have come to carry you home

And all will turn to silver glass

A light on the water, all souls pass

Hope fades into the world of night

Through shadows falling out of memory and time

Don't say we have come now to the end

White shores are calling, you and I will meet again

And you'll be here in my arms, just sleeping

What can you see on the horizon?

Why do the white gulls call?

Across the Sea a pale moon rises

The ships have come to carry you home

And all will turn to silver glass

A light on the water, grey ships pass
Into the West.'

From the film The Return of the Kings,

Original lyric by Fran Walsh

Our Own Brand of Fundamentalism

I am not about to call conservative Christians terrorists. Certainly Islam and the most extreme versions of Judaism also have militant overtones which, if carried to their logical conclusion, could be very dangerous indeed. I agree with the vast majority of the tenets of evangelical Christianity. But there does seem to be a certain agenda in some popular interpretations of prophecy which I am starting to worry about. And as Christ calls us to first remove the log from our own eye, before attempting to remove the speck from someone else's, I feel a need to point out the danger in our own camp.

I want to point out some dangerous trends in Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christianity as it is popularly taught and preached today through series like Left Behind and similar television shows. And I am a believing Christian who falls more towards the Evangelical end of the spectrum! What worries me is the theory of the premillenial rapture. This is a long and convoluted tale, but the main point is that in its most extreme interpretation, true Christians will be raptured off of planet Earth before a really nasty period of time called the Tribulation. During this time a third of the Earth's land mass and seas will be destroyed in nuclear explosion, and the rest of the planet will suffer plague and pestilence and earthquakes to the point of near-destruction. Those Left Behind will have to struggle to survive these seven years before Christ returns for good and sets up his thousand-year reign.

The main problem with this theory is that it is at heart hopeless. There is no point in saving the planet, it's going to be destroyed anyway. There is no point in social justice, things are only going to get worse anyway until we blessed few are Raptured away to (presumably) watch the carnage from on high. We may as well withdraw to our little Christian enclave and wait it out. And the really scary part: there is no point to peace in the Middle East because the Bible says the Temple must be rebuilt and then violated in some mysterious fashion before the end can come. Therefore we must encourage the destruction of the Muslim side of the Temple Mount (Al Aqsa Mosque in Arabic) so that Christ can return!

That is the agenda. I reject it entirely, simply because it does not square with Christ's teachings of peace and not returning injustice with injustice. He warned that there would be division and trouble in this life, so I don't expect a utopia until he does return. But we are to be the light of the Earth, not contributers to the darkness.

As for the prophecies, one needn't follow the Left Behind interpretation to be a believer. I believe that most of Christ's predictions (like the destruction of the Temple) were fulfilled when the Romans attacked and defeated Jerusalem around 70 A.D. And I believe this was a direct result of the Israelites once again rejecting the words of a Prophet sent by God (the Old Testament is full of this.) "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword."

Prophecies have a way of being completely fulfilled, to the letter, in a way no one expected. Christ himself was an example. He was not the great warrior-king who would physically vanquish Israel's enemies and set up city-state on Earth to rule the world. He was a mere carpenter and itenerant preacher and died like a lamb to slaughter. His Kingdom is, strangely enough, right here with us and without borders, set up in the hearts and minds of any man, woman, or child who will listen to his call, and believe.

Those prophecies of Revelation which have yet come to pass (and that is a minority of them in my view) will be fulfilled in a similarly unexpected way. So quit trying to interpret them so hard and just live the way Christ told us all to. Quit trying to work out mathematical equations based on tiny details of the prophecies and live by the plain teachings:

"Why do you call me `Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you? Every one who comes to me and hears my words and does them, I will show you what he is like: he is like a man building a house, who dug deep, and laid the foundation upon rock; and when a flood arose, the stream broke against that house, and could not shake it, because it had been well built. But he who hears and does not do them is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation; against which the stream broke, and immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great." Luke 6:46

What do we owe our government?

This latest seems appropriate in light of the current elections. What do we owe our government? And what does it owe us? A recent poll in England found that fully 80% of Muslims identified themselves as Muslim first, and British second. The results have been decried all over the media and internet, with some of my friends at Military.com claiming that these people must be whackos. Here is my response.

Let me be the first to announce that I am a certified whacko. I am a Christian first, and an American second. My first and highest obligation is to God. I am ultimately answerable only to Him. Fortunately for the sake of civil tranquility, I largely take my direction from a scripture and tradition which tells me I should accept earthly authority and obey my masters as I would Christ. Not that I live up to obeying either Christ or my masters as I should.

Of course, the Teacher answered this question a while ago rather brilliantly, "Whose face do you see on this coin? Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's."

Here is an interpretation, take it if you will:

"Caesar" owns the land and the currency and the military and many other material things, and so we owe the State a tax and political allegiance and military service when called upon. God owns our lives and our world, and our tax, if you will, is what we do with them.

What he is saying, in large part, is:

Fulfill your obligations. All of them.

Saved by His Life

10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. (Rom. 5:10-11)

Al-Qaeda's Foreign Policy

Here is an article from book I have meant to read for a while, called The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. I do not agree with everything in it. For instance, I do not think that it much matters whether Iran has sent suicide bombers or not if they have made a point of materially and financially supporting these operations. Please, do read this article for yourselves:

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html

Whether a terrorist blows himself up or blows up an American Humvee with an IED, the end result is the same. Suicide bombing is merely one weapon in Al-Qaeda's arsenal, and the economic position and Islamic indoctrination of individual terrorists are simply recruiting tools for these operations. As an Arabic linguist and analyst of the Middle East, I am more interested in the strategy behind Al-Qaeda's tactics.

I do agree with this statement in Pape's article:

"Al-Qaeda appears to have made a deliberate decision not to attack the United States in the short term. We know this not only from the pattern of their attacks but because we have an actual al-Qaeda planning document found by Norwegian intelligence."

I came to this realization some time ago. It would not be that difficult to conduct another terrorist operation on American soil. So why hasn't it happened? Al-Qaeda has not attacked here again largely because it has chosen not to. Now, this does not mean that there are not funding and support operations going on in this country, nor that there are no terrorist cells. I do not know everything that has gone on since 9/11. But based on Al-Qaeda's stated goals, and their actions so far, I agree that it is not their current strategy to attack us here. Things can change, and they may in fact be motivated to conduct more terrorism here if they think we will withdraw from the Middle East any faster. But that is not the conclusion they have come to for now. And so, for now, to fight them effectively we must understand Al-Qaeda's foreign policy, sot to speak.

Al-Qaeda attacked us in the first place in order to influence our actions. Namely, they want our forces out of the Middle East, and in particular out of Saudi Arabia. In my opinion Al-Qaeda has hijacked our foreign policy as neatly as they did three airplanes on September 11th. They drew us into this fight and now we are fighting them according to their terms. They are fast becoming savvy at assymetrical warfare. They count as victory destabilizing our military operations in the Middle East and forcing our withdrawal from the region on their conditions, and they intend to pursue their goals at all costs. They do not care how many casualties it takes on their side. At the same time they know very well the impact of both American military and local civilian casualties on the stability of Iraq and thus our position in the country, to say nothing of our morale back home. For them, all the death and destruction is a win-win proposition. We have to turn the tide and fight this war on our terms.

As for those who say that Islamicists may someday consider Europe and the United States their homeland which must be purified, you must understand the history and culture of the region. Islamicists wish to return the ancient Islamic Caliphate to an Islamic state. They do not intend to take over the planet, though it is prophesied in the Quran that the whole world will eventually turn to Islam. Their desired Islamic State includes first and foremost the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, then the surrounding area (Saudi Arabia.) Unfortunately the Islamic Caliphate did encompass southern Spain and definitely includes Jerusalem, which does not bode well for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The problem with Western occupiers in this sacred territory is that they are non-Muslim. And since they hold the upper hand on Middle Eastern soil by their military and political might, they show themselves as stronger than the Muslims and thus degrade or disgrace Islam. Which you may have noticed Muslims are sensitive about.

If we are to act honorably in the region, it will require us to treat the Islamic Middle East with honor. We have preached loudly the doctrine of self determination and then ignored the Arab world's response to our call, that they wish Islam to be the main influence in many, if not most, of their countries. It is quite possible to satisfy this desire for self-determination and our own interests.

We should maintain naval forces offshore and ground forces in the surrounding regions to make it clear that we will react to any attack against our national security or interests with quick and decisive military force. We can in the meantime continue to disrupt and destroy terrorist networks since terrorism constitutes a threat to our national security and global stability.

That is a nice long term goal, but for now we have bigger problems. We must have reassurances that Iraq will be reasonably secure before we offer to withdraw. I would like to see Arab countries step in here, but they have some serious problems with organization and corruption, and difficulty accepting responsibility for their own actions. It will take some carrot-and-really-big-stick diplomacy to convince them. I would like to see democracy in the region, but some countries have made it fairly clear that they aren't interested. The desire for democracy must come from within. I would settle for stability and basic human rights, among them the right for a woman to receive an education and hold a job, and the right to convert from Islam without facing a death sentence! This last has been a problem in the new "democracy" we have set up in Afghanistan.

The situation in the Middle East is complex but it is quite possible to understand the strategy of Al-Qaeda and the motivation behind the will to fight the West in general. We can fight Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups and at the same time address and resolve the concerns of the Arab world. However, Our biggest problem at this moment is Iraq, and until we have solved it, we are not fighting on our terms at all. To summarize: the situation in Iraq right now is not, "Better to fight them over there, than here at home," but rather, "We broke it, we bought it."

On a Just and Righteous Government

Eid Al-Mubarek, wa kul al-am wa ant B'Khair.

What is the just and righteous form of government? In Islam, as I understand it, there is no divorce between the precepts of faith and the rule of government. On the contrary, there is to be unity in government with the religion of Islam. There is room for people of other faiths, but they will be subject to certain limitations or penalties. It is assumed that the perfection of Islam will lead to peace and a stable government.

I take no issue with this, per se. It is not democracy, but if this is how you choose to run your government, then so be it. However, we in the West are in a position today where we have recently established something we want to call a "democracy" in Afghanistan, where recently a convert to Christianity, Abd Al-Rahman, was sentenced to death. Fortunately he sought and found asylum in Italy. Apparently, it is an offense punishable by death to convert from Islam under Islamic law. I have the most problems with this tenet of Islamic law.

Our founding fathers came from an environment where religious differences had led to hundreds of years of warfare, often conducted with no regard for the human rights of innocents or captured prisoners. Religion had been used to oppress and even kill adherents of non-majority religions and sects. They rightly concluded that religion and political power are a dangerous combination which too often lets the worst of human nature hold reign, with no limits, due to the justification of religion. They precluded this from happening in the newly United States of America, enshrined in our First Amendment to the Constitution,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Besides the obvious problems of religion combined with human political authority, there is a problem of conscience in religion. Can you be said to be a true believer when you only hold a faith because you are ordered to by the government? I think the answer is maybe, but that there will be many who are not true believers, but merely go through the motions without actually submitting to God. Perhaps the argument is that the good of society served by unity in religion outweighs this risk. I cannot agree to that argument. It undermines the integrity of the religion. The government can order you to adhere to a doctrine or practice which you believe to be wrong. By complying, you are going against the truth of your beliefs. This contradiction leads to either open rebellion or hypocrisy.

". . . Religion, or the duty which we owe the Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience." This, from a declaration of rights for the constitution of Virginia's colonial legislature in 1776.

I believe that every government, whether a democracy or no, should include basic human rights, and that among these rights are the right to life and liberty, the right to freedom of conscience and the right of freedom of speech. This is justice in its most basic format, whether a country is Islamic or monarchic or socialist or democratic. There is no way to enforce this, unless we were to truly act on our principles and require these basic rights as a prequisite for any trade relations with any other country, regardless of what economic benefits might be gained. Naturally, this precludes trade with China and a few Middle Eastern countries. I am afraid we have let economy speak louder than justice and freedom. In doing so, we have undermined our own message of justice and freedom. Afghanistan is clearly no democracy, and I do not see it as being much better off than it was before if a man can be put to death for converting to a different faith.

IF we stood by our convictions I think our actions would speak much louder than our words. This is a source of much of the discontent and downright anti-Americanism in the world today. Large groups of people will hate us and wish us violence regardless, but this is no reason to further the contradiction between what we say we believe and what our actions show us to believe. Know the right thing and do it, and damn the consequences.

My first post

This first post seems particularly appropriate in light of the anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the U.S., though I did not think of the timing of the post until I had nearly finished it. This question has been dwelling on my mind for a number of months now. Read on.

Christ and the Suicide Bomber

I'm not one to shy from difficult questions. Nor do I accept most simple answers. I put forward this question with due respect and expect the same. I honestly want to learn more about this topic, and I particularly appreciate anyone who can cite scripture or other books. Serious inquiries only.

My question is this: How does the concept of martyrdom differ between Christians and Muslims? I know enough Arabic to get by in the news broadcasts. I learned the language in the military, and with the language came Arab and Muslim teachers and countless hours of Al Jazeera and Al Aribiyah so I understand more than the average American the Arabic-speaking culture and viewpoint of Muslims.

One term I hear used differently than its translation would admit, is Martyr. In English, we mean by Martyr one who dies rather than reject his religion. In Arabic news, anyone who is killed in military action, not always as a result of non-Muslim militaries, is called a Shaheed. This term is translated into English as Martyr, as both terms literally mean "witness." It does not matter if he was an armed fighter or an innocent bystander. I have asked Arabic speakers and Muslims about this and they say it is because historically, Muslims have often died defending their faith (this would almost always be against an armed Christian, whether or not the Muslim was armed.) The use broadened over time to anyone dying in a conflict.

I have even heard the term "Shaheed" used for a suicide bomber, though I am not sure how many Muslims accept it. This last use is especially alarming to a Christian, since women and children and even Muslims have been killed by suicide bombers.

I have heard this logic from militant writings: the suicide bomber is a Martyr because he dies in a conflict between rightly guided Muslims and apostates or unbelievers. Women and children and even Muslims being killed in the process is just collateral damage.

I do not accept this view at all. My rejection is instinctive, perhaps culturally ingrained. But where is my problem with it?

Our own military imposes collateral damage, of course, that is the nature of all warfare, though we have codified and tried to limit such casualties through the concepts of just and limited war and the Law of Land Warfare. And I have read about people committing suicide rather than convert to another faith both in Jewish and Christian writings.

Part of my problem is using suicide as a military tactic. It's been done before, most notably with the Japanese Kamikaze pilots during WW II, but it still an almost inconceivable concept to a Westerner. For us it is in act of desperation and heroism, a soldier might, for instance, throw himself on a grenade to take the brunt of an explosion to save the men he serves with.

But I do not think that is all there is to my rejection of the suicide bomber. It seems to be deeper, that a man committing suicide and killing others in the process should be called a Martyr at all seems wrong. Perhaps part of my view is shaped by my faith. I know that Muslims differ from Christians on the death and resurrection of Jesus. Indeed, that is where all faiths part ways with Christianity. But hear me out, and comment on this if you choose, or on the first part of this post if you'd rather leave it at that.

"6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life."
Romans 5: 6-10, English Standard Version

To us, Christ was the ultimate Martyr because rather than attack them, he died for his enemies. He did not return hatred with hatred or abuse with abuse. He told his followers they must turn the other cheek, and then did not resist being put to death. He left us with the example of his life, and if need be, his death, to live up to. And we have struggled to do so, and have too often failed in our efforts ever since.