Beyond terrorism.

Terrorism has obsessed us for more than a decade.  George W. Bush declared a “war” on it. His successor has tried to wean us off that concept, but it remains embedded in our psyche.   We Americans are drawn to the broad all-inclusive brush, headlines rather than detail.  Would that reality reflected such a simplistic view.  It doesn’t.  We humans, and what we do, are much more nuanced; our actions often inconsistent, even contradictory.  Lumping disparate groups under a single umbrella — in this case terrorists — is misleading and, as such, can be costly.  It leads to flawed policy and decision-making that may undermine us both at home and abroad.  

A case in point is that even now many of our fellow citizens probably view Muslims as followers of a single — read that unchristian — ideology or religion.  Looking at today’s raging conflict between Sunnis and Shiites especially in Iraq and Syria, it’s clear that nothing could be further from the truth.   Not only are their takes on Islam different, at the extreme they can be mortal enemies.  These are denominational sectarian conflicts over which of the two possesses the true faith.  Who knew?  Well obviously some people knew very well and all the others should have known.  It happens that those who followed Osama bin Laden were Muslims who also committed a series of terrorist attacks.  It is also true that Al Qaeda members represent an extreme of Islam, in this case Sunni Islam.  Does it follow that all Muslims are terrorists or even that those who follow an extreme form of Islam — the ultra-orthodox — are terrorists?  Of course not on both counts.   The rulers of Saudi Arabia follow Wahabism, a very extreme form of Sunni Islam and they are not deemed to be terrorists.

Who is a terrorist?   Someone who carries out acts calculated to terrify and thus intimidate is probably an adequate definition.  And we tend to associate terrorist acts, the kind that have gotten so much of our attention, as ones of unbridled violence, often targeting the innocent.  Whether or not the horrendous murder of three Israeli teens is an act of terrorism or criminality is yet to be determined, but the former would not be surprising.  While painful, especially in light of such news, let’s ask the broader question to which we probably should be devoting much more time than we do, if at all.  When do those who have engaged in terrorist acts — individuals or groups — become something else?  When have they reached a state beyond terrorism?   

Consider this.   Menachem Begin, who served as Prime Minister of Israel and signed the breakthrough peace treaty with Egypt, started out as a terrorist.  The  forerunner of what ultimately became Bibi Netanyahu’s rightest and governing (in coalition) Likud Party was Begin’s terrorist organization.  The widely labeled terrorist organization Sinn Fein is now a political party in Ireland.  And how would you characterize the popes and Catholic Church that condoned and committed clear acts of terror during the Crusades as its minions marched across Europe and into the Middle East reaping death and havoc on the way?

The Crusades are an interesting and timely example.  Sent out by religious leaders, their objective was to reclaim all of the lands through which they passed for Christianity.  Their infidel enemies were Muslims and the caliphate under which they lived.  Remember how George W. Bush was criticized for calling his “war on terrorism” a Crusade and thus raising the specter of a religious war?  The Crusades of the middle and late medieval periods were religious conflicts. Each side claimed ownership of the truth and of course acting in God’s name.  While the kind of brutality it has displayed may be different, Isis is bent on conquering lands to reestablish a Sunni caliphate in modern times.  They seek a theocracy to replace infidel, often secular, governance.  Were the followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini who overthrew the shah to establish a theocracy in Iran terrorists?   Again, Isis may be waging a ruthless fight, but others have done so as before them.  As they capture territory and declare statehood, a caliphate theocracy, they promise to collect the garbage, provide social services and pay workers wages.  That these will be funded by stolen, or confiscated if you take their view, money is not the issue.  They are simply following the heretofore-successful model of Hezbollah and Hamas.

Now don’t get me wrong, I abhor theocracies and am wary of anyone — following any religion or ideology — that claims to possess the truth.  If I encountered an Isis warrior on the street, he would likely not hesitate to take my life not because what I have done but for who I am.  The real question, and a painfully controversial one to be sure, is not about brutality.  That must be condemned and, yes, opposed by all of us.  Rather it is whether anyone who seeks political change through the use of violence is a terrorist?  Or to put it differently, at what point does a group that employed terrorist tactics to gain power become something else, albeit a something we don’t necessarily like?  Admittedly, these radicals aren’t seeking change at the ballot box, but neither did the founders of our great democracy.  They obviously didn’t employ terrorist tactics, but they felt forced to wage war against the ruling English for the right to self-rule.  Yes, we can say that we heartily dislike Isis’ radical Islamist ideology, their medieval worldview and certainly their bloody tactics, but their stated goal is ultimately not relatively different than that of many past revolutions.  Is it any less legitimate?

In a recent interview Charlie Rose asked Harvard Law professor and Barack Obama mentor Laurence Tribe what is the most important message he has left with his students.  Perhaps, he replied, it is that “there are more sides to every issue.  Things are not advanced by planting your feet in the sand and sticking to a position.”  The bottom line: “put yourself in someone else’s mind.”  His words are directed at law students, future advocates, but we would do well to take his advice to heart — exactly the opposite of what seems to be afoot these days.  As I’ve written before, planting our feet in the sand has become endemic in today’s politics and culture.  It all too often pervades our approach to the wider world as well.  We see everything in terms of good guys and bad guys, black and white.  Once we’ve branded (often opportunistically) a country or group as one or the other, the characterization sticks.

We do so inconsistently and this can make for very strange bedfellows.  We stamp ultra-orthodox and bad on those with whom we are in conflict; in the current environment we seem to mindlessly brand them all as terrorists.  Isis falls in this camp but so does the Taliban, as if they were cut of identical cloth.  Conversely the equally religiously extreme Saudi monarchy (ask their women) is labeled good and legitimate.  We considered Mubarak a staunch ally even though he was a cruel dictator masquerading in a custom made Savile Row suit and we stay mostly silent when General Sisi takes power in a coup and condemns an untold number of opponents to death in mock courts.  The definition of our interests is, to be charitable, as flexible as Jell-O and at times totally inconsistent.

I said earlier that we tend to brand others good or bad and that the characterization sticks.  Let’s amend that.  It sticks until it doesn’t.  Think Germany.  Whatever all of the now labeled terrorist groups have done in the last decades, it pales in comparison to what evil was wrought by the National Socialists, with the support of their German citizenry.  Hitler was elected Chancellor.  The Nazis slaughtered millions, among them members of my extended family.  They claimed to be the Master Race and they invaded other lands not only to extend their territory but also to spread their sick truth.  Fast forward, and not that far, Germany is a BFOA and we of them.  The monster is the partner (even when we eavesdrop on Andrea Merkel’s phone conversations).  The point is that we are very capable of reassessing and, as Professor Tribe admonishes his students, not “planting our feet in the sand”.

In my view, religious absolutism, the domain of the ultra-orthodox whether Muslim, Christian or Jew, is poisonous.  It may not always express itself in violence, but holding the view that our way is the only legitimate way the potential for bad outcomes always exists.  The ultra orthodox Jewish settlers on the West Bank who believe firmly that all of the Holy Land is theirs by divine right could easily be moved to violence, even terrorism, if they saw their way of life really threatened.  A still complaint Israeli government keeps the lid on by avoiding the obviouis, but what happens when it finally (and inevitably if it wants to survive) accepts and implements a two-state solution is anyone’s guess.  History doesn’t make me optimistic in that regard.

We may not agree with them, we may not like them and we certainly can’t condone their acts of terror.  But we should try to put ourselves in their minds; we should contextualize their situation.  For one, what moves those we label terrorists with our broad brush are not always the same.  Isis claims to want a restoration of a caliphate, but they never have governed.  We may see the Taliban as enemies because they hosted bin Laden, but they did rule Afghanistan for a time, albeit in a theocratic manner.  We too are committed to our way and continually claim that we would make what President Kennedy called “any sacrifice” to protect it.  We pride ourselves on being an open society and in secular governance, even though not always perfectly. 

Those we call terrorists, often but not always accurately, engage heinous acts, but let’s not assume they do so without their own dreams and also frustrations.  We may think their ways are misguided and unforgivable, but we would do well to think of what’s going on in their heads.  It’s convenient to brand them all terrorists, but that broad brush inhibits us from moving beyond today and from differentiating between one branded terrorist from another, not to mention from adversaries who may simply be waging war.  We’ve painted a forest and have lost sight of the trees, existing and potential.  At some point that must end, we must get beyond terrorism.

Theocracy under fire.

Ten days ago, The Pew Forum released a report entitled, Canada's Changing Religious Landscape.  It has been tracking our religious landscape for years, documenting a dramatic rise in the unaffiliated.  A similar, but even faster growing, trend is underway in our northern neighbor.  The "nones" whom I call transcenders now account for about one in four Canadians compared with one in five here.

As in the US, participation in religious services is down (27%), but more so than here (46%).  These attendance numbers rely on self-reporting not headcounts, so they may be overstated reflecting that people like to think they're going to church regularly.  In Canada, more young people also live without religion than do their parents and grandparents.  That said, one of the interesting findings in this report is that between 1971 and today, the number of Canadian transcenders 65 and older has actually grown threefold (4% to 12%), which is actually a larger percentage increase than for any other cohort.  Yes 12% senior non-religious is only half of the combined (all ages) total 24%, but it is still a meaningful number.  It may not definitively negate the notion that the older we get the more religious, but it makes one wonder if the attitudinal gulf between generations may narrowing in the years ahead and at an accelerated pace.

All research must be taken with some caution.  Results are highly dependent on who the respondents were, what they were asked (wording counts) and how the study was carried out — there is difference, for example, between telephone and face-to-face interviews.  Pew's report relied heavily on telephone interviews undertaken by the Canadian arm of the highly respected General Social Survey. The two countries' numbers are not direct comparisons since the dates covered differ.  The latest Canadian count of transcenders is as of 2011; the latest US numbers are from 2012.  This in itself is not necessarily significant, but is an indication of the varied interpretive challenges we face in reading research results.

It isn't merely a matter of how to read research; it's also of who reads it.   You and I can encounter the exact same numbers and draw somewhat different conclusions based upon our own bias or interests.  A few days after releasing the Canadian study, Pew reported on another entitled Growth of the Nonreligious: Many Say Trend is Bad for American Society.  What they found was the 48% of overall respondents said that the trend was "bad" while only 11% thought it good.  No doubt 48% is "many" but if you add the 39% of Americans who said it didn't matter, then a larger (combined) number (50%) didn't think it was bad.  Let's call it 50-50.  The point is, headlining the people who think it bad as "many" colors the perception — it's true, but perhaps not necessarily as balanced as the body copy that follows would suggest.  In fact, it reports the even split.  We think of the media as the prime source of misleading (eye catching) headlines, but let's not think they are alone in that, or that their motives are sinister.

It is not surprising that citizens in our "religious country" think the current trend away from religion is not a good thing.  Needless to say, active churchgoers feel more strongly, especially among the more orthodox faiths.  Unfortunately, this is a singular study, so we have no way of knowing if attitudes are changing, something we might expect considering the "growth of the non-religious".  Even so, among the numbers that I found most interesting is that, while 74% of churchgoing "white" Catholics thought the growth of transcenders is a bad thing, only 39% of Hispanic Catholics felt that way.

This attitudinal difference between "white" and Hispanic members of the same faith may signal the potential impact of changing demographics in a country that is rapidly becoming more diversified.  And of course the role of changing demographics in the political landscape is of central importance.  That we are finally seeing some action on Immigration reform reflects the growing significance of Hispanics in the electorate, a group that is touted as the fastest growing in the land.  But, as pointed out in earlier posts, transcenders are growing even faster and still outnumber Latinos.  Little is said about that demographic and how it will play in the years to come.

Little is said, but that doesn't mean transcenders aren't noticed or that their growing numbers haven't produced a reaction.  Much of what moves the Tea Party ideology is to combat what they see as diminished religious values.  They definitely think the growth of the non-religious is a very bad thing, but also understand that in the face of rapidly changing demographics theirs may ultimately be a losing battle.  This explains their hyper-aggressive, almost frantic, enactment of anti-marriage equality and anti-abortion legislation in those states whose governments they now control (Texas for some time, North Carolina only in the last year).  Governors and legislators may take cover by invoking state's rights or fiscal conservatism, but these laws are all religiously based, and it's a religion of a certain orthodox kind.  The clock is ticking on their way of life (in some cases a way already passed).  Their only hope is that, once on the books, these laws may be hard to overturn.  There actions are have a terrible negative impact on LGBTs, women and indeed on all of us, but these fringe zealots are on the wrong side of history.  Their religion card just doesn't play the way it once did, their theocratic ways are under fire.

To be sure, the political divisions in this country are rooted in different approaches to economics and even to a clash between federal and state's rights.  But for certain religious orthodox the struggle is just as much between religion and secularism.  The vast majority of mainstream religious don't agree, but for these people God's governance and "traditional" (think marriage) ways based on divinely revealed law are on the line.  And that brings me to Egypt.  Much conventional and digital ink has spent against the proposition that the principle struggle engulfing the Muslim world is between Sunni and Shia.  There is much truth to that.  But an equal, and in some ways more far reaching, struggle is between those who believe in a religious verses secular state.

I am not alone is being torn between what looks like a setback for democracy in Egypt while recognizing that Mohamed Morsi's rule strayed far from the democratic way.  He may not be a cleric, but it would be fair to say he is more of a theocrat (Sharia Law, etc.) than a democrat.  By the way, the same can be said about many of those who now hold power in the states I mentioned, though they would vigorously deny it.  The Morsi government's demise can be attributed to a number of factors including economic decline and its sheer incompetence.  In some respects, his failure can be attributed to the fact that it is easier to criticize than to govern, doubly so if you have been on the outside for so long.   Oppositions like the Muslim Brotherhood that have been denied opportunities to govern at any level for decades simply lack the human infrastructure and experience to do so.  But it was ultimately Morsi's autocratic and undemocratic ways that did him in.  He came to power because Egyptians had just deposed one dictator; they didn't want another.

Seasoned observers like Tom Friedman and Roger Cohen have suggested that Morsi's downfall fits a pattern of growing resistance to religious rather than secular rule in Muslim countries.  The recent demonstrations against Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan reflect a pushback against his efforts to move away from years of secular governance.  The Egyptian situation is still in flux and making predictions about the outcome would be premature.  We also don't know how Turkey will turn out and whether the more moderate elected president in Iran will have any impact on its theocratic regime (though that seems unlikely). We Americans love our democracy and sometimes forget that others may not share our enthusiasm.  Unlike George W. Bush, I don't think a wish for democracy is innate to our species, much less democracy as we define it.  Too many of our fellow human beings have opted for something else.  Consider Putin's Russia as an example of that.

With regard to the Muslim world, we should remember that it is largely dominated by the religious orthodox.  Orthodoxy of this kind isn't democratic, just the opposite.  It fosters top down leadership by an elite and often by a singular autocratic leader.  That's true with the Ayatollah in Iran, the Wahhabi monarch in Saudi Arabia and, yes, the Pope in Rome.  The pope may not be a dictator in the political sense, but once in place is an absolute ruler with extraordinary powers.  Pope Francis just elevated two of his predecessors to sainthood effectively making them super human and potentially the object of prayer.  And he did so by fiat, in the case of John XXIII bypassing one of the requirements.  Absolute rulers can do such things. 

The growth of transcenders is unnerving orthodox religionists in the United States.  In a place where so many "secular" governments have been despotic —Iran, Egypt, Syria or Iraq — the suppressed religious have often led the revolutions.  Now in power, some of their populations seem to be feeling buyer's remorse, albeit not necessarily in rejecting religion from their own lives.  Whether the growth of transcenders in the West will be echoed in the East is unknown (and in the short term unlikely) but whether religious governance can prevail in the world of the Internet where what's happening here is quickly known there and visa-versa is an intriguing question.  Stay tuned. 

_____________________

My book Transcenders: Living beyond religion and the religion wars is available in print and as an eBook.  Both versions are available at Amazon; the electronic iBooks version can be found at iTunes; a Nook version at Barnes & Noble.