It’s usually a man—or a boy, or something between. Not all people of his religion are on the margins like him; that’s clear. If they were, both foiled and successful terrorist attacks would be news on the order of traffic fatalities. But it’s also clear that his religion taps into his insecurities, his fears, his angers; it provides a moral justification for his actions.
Maybe at first he channels his anger about any number of things into a monstrous attitude toward nonbelievers. But gradually he succumbs to the word of the authorities—not only his religious leaders, but also to the written word, the text that has been adhered to for centuries, the text that should never be questioned, the text that yields his leaders’ interpretations on which he depends.
He begins to hate aspects of our society—the commercialism, the sexuality, the libertine philosophy that people espouse in their everyday lives. In his eyes, America is a cesspool, and only the brave can reform it. He does consider himself brave, even noble.
All his life he’s been told that people not like him are not merely different: They’re infidels. A five-year-old may not comprehend that people of other faiths should convert or die, but ten or twelve years later, a teenager can make that connection. And when those infidels threaten you, or your community, well, it’s an easy jump to want to effect their deaths.
Like many of his predecessors, he isn’t afraid of his own death; life on this earth, he’s been taught, is but a step to the rewards that await him in the afterlife. On the contrary, it’s glorious to die for one’s beliefs, and it’s even more glorious to kill for one’s beliefs. That’s the message. And someone unafraid—even longing—to die while killing others is especially dangerous.
So how do we prevent such acts? Do we profile those of his ilk? Do we follow him around to see what kinds of religious indoctrination he’s receiving? Do we forbid such religious indoctrination?
If we do, then there are dangers to all of our rights. If we arrest the religious leaders who are inciting others to violence, who are fomenting hate and intolerance, then civil libertarians take the side of the religious leaders. It’s exceedingly hard to prove that certain speeches ipso facto caused or will cause a certain act, even if those speeches have been given numerous times over many years to thousands of impressionable people. After all, not everyone who hears the speeches commits the act.
Many people believe as the terrorist does, but they haven’t crossed the line to violence. They know they’d be forgiven for it, because, in their minds, it’s a righteous violence. They know they’d be idolized for it, because others will understand why they did what they did. And they know they’d be rewarded for it, because they feel that their God rewards those who obey the precepts they were taught to obey. But they’re just not the type to blow up a building, set fire to a house of worship, assassinate someone.
We’re lucky they’re not the type.
Orthodox, fundamental leaders of many religions spawn murderers. Among those they hate and fear are homosexuals, women, doctors who perform abortions, atheists, and anyone not of their culture or faith. They provide us with a challenge: how to stop them while not abridging our freedoms. Christians decry the fundamentalist religious leaders that foster terrorist attacks; they should look at their own fundamentalist religious leaders, at the history of their own church, at the screeds of intolerance that pour forth every day from the citadels of their faith, crafted to incite violence in the hearts and minds of dangerous people.
“Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free.”—Pat Buchanan, speech to the Christian Coalition, September 1993
“I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good. . . . Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don’t want equal time. We don’t want pluralism.”—Randall Terry, Fort Wayne, Indiana, News Sentinel, August 16, 1993
“The State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit [homosexual] conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle.”—Judge Roy Moore, from a 2002 concurrence in a custody case involving a lesbian mother
Is it so hard to imagine what goes on in the mind of a terrorist? If you’re taught, first, to obey an authority without question or recourse to fact or reason; second, to adhere to all the tenets of a particular faith, regardless of the consequences; third, to revere literature that your group has pronounced holy and infallible; fourth, to fear and revile those who do not follow your path; and finally, to expend all effort in bringing the entire world in line with your faith—what do you expect?
How do you stop intolerance and violence? Go to the source. Let’s hear more ministers, priests, rabbis, and mullahs condemn those on their fringes rather than those who don’t adhere to their orthodoxy. Granted, exclusivity is the seed of many of these leaders’ power and control. But maybe they can use their high offices to persuade people tempted by the edges to return to the fold.
Is that asking too much? Consider the alternative.