March 19, 2003
IS THE POPE STILL CATHOLIC?:
Pope John Paul II is a man of intellectual courage and a leading philosopher of the school known as Christian personalism. He has often integrated his personalist views into traditional Catholic teachings to good effect: his strong support for capitalism and democracy helped bring the Catholic nations of Latin America, Iberia, and Africa from dictatorship to democracy during his papacy; and his teachings on sex, love, and marriage have helped make "the new familiar, and the familiar new." But in one area -- questions of the use of force, especially in matters of life or death -- his innovations seem to me a step backward.
Traditional Catholic teaching integrates hundreds of Bible passages which in some cases endorse the use of force, even deadly force, and in other cases reject it. For instance:
If a thief is caught in the act of housebreaking and beaten to death, there is no bloodguilt involved. [Exodus 22:1]
I say unto you, resist not evil; if one strike you on the right cheek, offer him the other. [Matthew 5:39]
Christian tradition makes sense of these passages by recognizing distinct spheres of Christian decision-making: decisions about which uses of force are legitimate (or, as we would say today, just), so that the user of force cannot rightly be subjected to force in return; decisions about which legitimate actions are good or best (or, as we would say today, morally or prudentially good); and finally, decisions about which thoughts, emotions, and inner attitudes ought to be adopted (or, are spiritually good).
Exodus tells us that killing a housebreaker is a legitimate act, so that no one may rightly punish a householder who kills a housebreaker. But though such a killing would be legitimate, so too not killing the housebreaker would also be legitimate. Which should the householder choose? That is a moral question. Jesus's "resist not evil" is traditionally taken as a spiritual, not a moral, injunction, for, as St. Thomas Aquinas noted, Jesus's cheek really was slapped and far from turning the other one, Jesus protested (John 18:23). Aquinas comments:
Holy Scripture must be understood in the light of what Christ and the saints have actually practiced. Christ did not offer His other cheek, nor Paul either. Thus to interpret the injunction of the Sermon on the Mount literally is to misunderstand it. This injunction signifies rather the readiness of the soul to bear, if it be necessary, such things and worse, without bitterness against the attacker. This readiness our Lord showed, when He gave up His body to be crucified. [Commentary on Saint John, 4, 2]
The Christian tradition concludes, therefore, that: (1) it is often legitimate and just to use deadly force against violent aggressors; (2) it is sometimes good, prudent, and desirable to do so; and (3) we must carefully search our hearts, uproot any desire for vengeance, and use force from a spirit of love rather than from a desire to hurt.
Indeed, traditional Christianity holds that to use force against evildoers is an act of love: love for the evildoers, because it limits their descent into sin and encourages them to repent; and love for those who would otherwise fall victim to the evildoers. As an act of love, the use of force can be morally obligatory, particularly for those authorities to whom society has entrusted the use of force.
One further point regarding traditional Christian teaching is worth making. The Bible makes no ethical distinction between rulers and ruled: the same ethical law applies to all. Distinctions in the right to use force will come about because of the voluntary agreements of persons, but such agreements are always limited by the original grants of authority under divine law. Thus the principles governing a ruler's decisions about force in war are derived from the same principles as those governing a householder's decision to kill a housebreaker. As Scripture has it:
[S]hould you then decide to have a king over you like all the surrounding nations, . . . [w]hen he is enthroned in his kingdom, he shall have a copy of this law made from the scroll that is in the custody of the levitical priests. He shall keep it with him and read it all the days of his life that he may learn to fear the LORD, his God, and to heed and fulfill all the words of this law and these statutes. Let him not become estranged from his countrymen through pride, nor turn aside to the right or to the left from these commandments. [Deuteronomy 17: 14,18-20]
As our own Declaration of Independence, a truly Christian document, put it: governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. People delegate their own authority to use force to government officials. It is only within the limits of such delegation that governments can rightly use force.
The Christian tradition on the use of force was thoroughly worked out by such eminent philosophers as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. Given the difficulty of finding alternative interpretations that are consistent with the many relevant Biblical injunctions, there would seem to be little scope for innovation in Catholic teaching on these issues.
Yet Pope John Paul II has brought about a change in rhetoric and emphasis. Horrified by the rise of mass abortion -- 40 million babies killed in the United States since 1973, and hundreds of millions around the world -- the Pope sought a new way to teach respect for life. He juxtaposed "the culture of death" with "the culture of life," and argued for life. This rhetoric avoids the subtleties of traditional Christian teaching on the use of force, but rhetorical power comes at some cost. How, for instance, can the Church's traditional support for capital punishment be reconciled with its denunciation of "the culture of death"?
Theologically the reconciliation is possible, but only by emphasizing the prudential judgment. The Bible makes clear that the death penalty is a legitimate response to murder ("Whoever takes the life of any human being shall be put to death," Leviticus 24:17). But life imprisonment, or some lesser sentence, are also legitimate. Which is morally best? At this point a prudential judgment must be made. Here the Pope argues that, of the various legitimate courses, abjuring the death penalty is best because doing so will help promote "the culture of life." In effect, the Pope seems to be arguing that many people who on issues like abortion would not be persuaded by the sophisticated but subtle Bible-driven traditional Catholic principles, are open to persuasion by the simpler life-is-better-than-death argument, and that, as it is crucial to win over these people, it would be imprudent to make the "culture of life" rhetoric appear hypocritical by supporting the death penalty.
The result has been a kind of moral pacifism: yes, killing is sometimes just, but so rarely is it morally good, when all its consequences are considered, that in practice we should almost never do it. The prudential judgment almost completely swallows the rest of the theory. Prudence decides. What is more, the factors that prudence should consider are particular to the contemporary world -- the abortion plague, for instance. The Church does not reject St. Thomas Aquinas's judgment that the death penalty is morally superior to life imprisonment as a punishment for murder; rather it holds that times have changed, and in current circumstances it is best to oppose death.
One consequence is a de-Christianization of Church rhetoric about the use of deadly force. Biblical principles are irrelevant to the decision; only consequences in today's world affect the prudential decision. This is why Catholic bishops, speaking today on questions of deadly force, rarely quote the Bible or the saints, and make arguments indistinguishable from those of atheists.
Let's look now at recent Vatican statements regarding the war on Iraq.
Vatican Strongly Opposes War (Fox News, 3/12/2003)
Pope John Paul II and top Vatican officials are unleashing a barrage of condemnations of a possible U.S. military strike on Iraq, calling it immoral, risky and a "crime against peace."...The stance reflects what experts say is the Vatican's evolving position on just war, already seen by its opposition to the Gulf War, as well as concern about the impact of war on relations between Christians and Muslims.
"He is looking ahead for the rest of this century where Christian-Muslim relations are key to peace and religious freedom in Africa and many parts of Asia," said the Rev. Thomas Reese, editor of the Jesuit magazine America....
"We want to say to America: Is it worth it to you? Won't you have have, afterward, decades of hostility in the Islamic world," asked the Vatican's No. 2 official, Cardinal Angelo Sodano.
Muslim opinion appears to be the Vatican's leading concern (Zenit, 3/11/2003):
John Paul II's "global diplomacy" in the Iraqi crisis is motivated in part by an attempt to avoid any kind of clash of civilizations, says the founder of the Community of Sant'Egidio.Andrea Riccardi, whose Catholic movement arose in Rome in 1968, said that "it is clear that the Vatican has the Christians of Iraq and the Muslim world in mind, who might remain as hostages of a Muslim reaction against the West. However, this is not the only reason for so much effort."
"As at the time of the Gulf War, the Pope does not want the confrontation to become a war between the West and Islam," Riccardi explained an article published in the Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia.
Let's spell out the Vatican's argument more completely. It hinges on these points: the prudential judgment is the decisive one; going to war with Iraq will create decades of hostility from Muslims toward Christians; that hostility is a disastrously bad consequence that outweighs all the good consequences of liberating the Iraqi people, saving Saddam's future victims, and destroying al Qaeda's chief patron. Having weighed the consequences, the Vatican concludes, prudence dictates avoiding war.
Now, I believe that the Vatican is mistaken about the consequences of war. Muslims will not despise Christians for liberating them from a vicious dictator, as this New York Times report from Baghdad shows:
The striking thing was that for many Iraqis the first American strike could not come too soon....Iraqis were astonishingly frank in suggesting they were ready to endure war for liberty.
One retired chemical engineer working as a taxi driver told a fare that he had listened to Mr. Bush. "People are waiting for America," he said, taking both hands off the wheel to simulate applause.
The truth is that Muslims, like all of God's children, yearn to breathe free. And Muslims will have gratitude toward Christians who risk their own lives to liberate Muslims.
Conversely, if Christians were so weak that we were not only unwilling to bear any burden for love of Iraqis, but unwilling to defend ourselves from the attacks of murderers like Saddam and al Qaeda, we might obtain the contempt of many Muslims. Statements by Osama bin Laden and others suggest that our refusal to respond to terrorist attacks throughout the 1990s led extremist Muslims to believe that we know our society and culture and religion to be unworthy of defense, and encouraged their attacks.
Moreover, the emphasis which the Vatican now gives to prudential judgment is contrary to the Biblical mindset. The Bible warns us against trying to calculate speculative consequences too finely: indeed, calculation is the pre-eminent activity of evildoers:
They have calculated and gone astray, they have not appreciated the honour of a blameless life. (Wisdom 2:21-22)
God made mankind straight, but men have had recourse to many calculations. (Ecclesiastes 7:29)
For the reasoning of mortals is worthless, and our designs are likely to fail. (Wisdom 9:14)
The LORD brings to nought the plans of nations; he foils the designs of peoples. (Psalm 33:10)
He frustrates the plans of the cunning,
so that their hands achieve no success;
He catches the wise in their own ruses,
and the designs of the crafty are routed.
They meet with darkness in the daytime,
and at noonday they grope as though it were night. (Job 5:12-14)
Faithful children of God, by contrast, reason from divine principles, and trust to God to arrange the world so that the consequences of principled action will be good. As Jesus might have said:
Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are we not of more value than they?... Therefore do not be anxious, saying, 'How shall we defease Muslim hostility? How shall we appease the Arab street?' For the Gentiles seek all these things; and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be yours as well. Therefore, do not be anxious about tomorrow.
I believe that, contrary to Vatican statements, America's actions toward Iraq are not only just but loving. Indeed, the American willingness to sacrifice our own lives to free Iraqis parallels Christ's willingness to sacrifice himself to "set the captives free." In this war, America is fulfilling Christ's last command, to love one another as he loved us.
I believe, further, that the Vatican's recent "evolution" in just war doctrine, apparently from tradition toward modern European progressive opinion, is mistaken. I stand with John Locke:
And he that shall collect all the moral rules of the philosophers, and compare them with those contained in the new testament, will find them to come short of the morality delivered by Our Saviour, and taught by his apostles; a college made up, for the most part, of ignorant, but inspired fishermen. (The Reasonableness of Christianity, 241)
It seems to me that Vatican would do well to show more clearly how its statements on war derive from this inspired morality.
May the war end swiftly, with few lives lost; and may God continue to bless America.
MORE: An opposing view from The Spectator (via Amy Welborn).
-REVIEW: of Just and Unjust War by Michael Walzer
(Brothers Judd)
Very impressive essay. I generally agree with the Pope on a lot of things and understand where he's coming from on a lot of others. I do believe that a lot of his position on this is Muslim factor. I don't think that's a bad thing, but I do think they should have passed on the strong opposition to this.
Posted by: RC at March 19, 2003 9:46 AM"And Muslims will have gratitude toward Christians who risk their own lives to liberate Muslims."
We should remember that plenty of non-Christians, including Muslims, serve in our Armed Forces.
I'm pessimistic that Muslims outside of Iraq will be particularly grateful to America following an invasion. We saved Muslim lives in Somalia and Kosovo, yet these actions are often interpreted by foreign Muslims as an evil plot to extend American hegemony. We liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban, yet Muslims outside Afghanistan believe that we unjustly killed civilians and are unjustly occupying the country (see http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=5797
for an example). We are defending Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Iraq, yet as far as I can judge most people in these countries believe America deserved 9/11 for our support to Israel. There's no reason to believe foreign Muslims will regard the upcoming war any more positively.
"Is it not clear, from numerous statements by Osama bin Laden and others, that our refusal to respond to terrorist attacks throughout the 1990s led many Muslims to believe that we deserved to die, and knew it?"
This is a decidedly odd statement, not for the implication that the appearance of weakness may have encouraged comtempt and terrorism, but for the incorrect idea that Muslims believe we deserved to die solely because we were weak, and the strange idea that Muslims believe America to be a self-loathing society. These inferences are "hardly clear" from terrorist statements.
But terrorist statements do make it clear why Muslim terrorists and their sympathizers think Americans deserve to die: the terrorists believe America is unjustly killing Muslims all over the world, and is furthermore deliberately humiliating Muslim countries. In their case, Palestine is exhbit A. Iraq is exhibit B, and will continue to be exhibit B when we have a massive military presence in that country. Troop presence in Saudi Arabia (Osama's personal bete noire) is exhibit C. Afghanistan has now become exhibit D.
A final comment: Osama did not believe that 9/11 alone would drive America out of Muslim countries, as Orrin's post implies. Osama was actually hoping for a war in Afghanistan, but he thought America would get bogged down and eventually withdraw when the going got tough. He had an eccentric view of history, and apparently believed that America would repeat the Soviet experience in Afghanistan. Hadn't the jihadi defeated the mighty Red Army? Osama even thought that the USA would break up just as the USSR did: in one interview he gloated that American states would secede from the Union rather than continue supporting Israel.
Posted by: Peter Caress at March 19, 2003 11:57 AMPeter - your comments are well taken. I believe President Bush when he says that we will pursue a long-term strategy of bringing democracy and freedom to the Middle East. As Muslims win the benefits of democracy and freedom for themselves, I expect them to be grateful for U.S. efforts. Similarly, as Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq enjoy the benefits of liberty, I expect them to persuade their fellow Muslims of the goodness of the U.S. interventions.
You are right that my "odd statement" was overstated. It ascribes a certain mode of thought, which I believe is implicit in Osama bin Laden's statements, to "many Muslims," and this is unfair to Muslims.
In contrast to your opinion that bin Laden is seeking vengeance for U.S. actions, I think he believes an Islamofascist dictatorship is destined to conquer the world, and that he hates us for our refusal to submit and because we present the world with the most attractive alternative to his. The goal of his terrorism is to hasten our submission to Islamofascism.
Maybe ideas about consent of the governed are "truly Christian" but they are completely unCatholic. I used to be one, and believe me, nobody ever asked my consent for anything. Catholicism is totalitarian.
As for gratitude from Muslims, you're fantasizing. A couple weeks ago, Lileks quoted from a gooey mess sent to parents of his Gnat's preschool, saying the way to win Muslim hearts and minds was not to bomb them but to attack diseases.
Well, the Muslim world is wholly or mostly free now of smallpox, polio, diphtheria, measles, guinea worm, typhoic, typhus and plague. All done by westerners and almost all by Christians.
Are the Muslims grateful? Well, no, they hate us.
I've edited the post, should be more plausible now.
Posted by: pj at March 19, 2003 2:19 PMHarry:
Are you saying that you'd trade freedom for health?
PJ-
Thanks for your thoughtful post. As readers of my blog are aware, I have been and remain deeply conflicted about this war and the details of that conflict are too numerous to go into in a comment box. (Among them are the baffling array of shifting reasons for war given by prowar folks
, the evident stupidity of so many anti-war voices, my skepticism that this is a last resort, my skepticism that this will lead to a peaceful Iraq and another shari'a state, my skepticism about American sanction policy the past 10 years, my deep sense that we are falling victim to Victimism (whereby all immoral actions are excused by the fact that we have been hurt), by the frankly idiotic jingoism I'm seeing from some quarters ("God is on our side!!") and by the cocky contempt for the Holy Father I'm seeing from some prowar voices (not yours).
I would dispute the notion that the Holy Father is ceasing to think with the Tradition. The deeply Christian and Catholic underpinnings of his thought are everywhere in evidence, including his approach to this war. At the center of the Holy Father's thought about the human person and the dignity thereof are the doctrines of Creation and Incarnation and its implications. At the center of his social thought (including thought about war) is his though about the primacy of the family in weighing all political considerations. This explains the Church's long-standing hostility to sanctions (the net effect of which has always been to hurt Iraqi families, not Saddam). And, it appears, from a Vatican perspective, this war is an attempt to mend a wrong with a further wrong.
One can disagree with the Holy Father's reading of the situation in light of Just War tradition. But I don't think one can make a reasonable case that the Holy Father is not thinking in light of the Tradition.
AUTHOR: Paul Jaminet
EMAIL: pauljaminet@pauljaminet.com
IP:
URL:
DATE: 03/19/2003 03:19:00 PM
AUTHOR: Paul Jaminet
EMAIL: pauljaminet@pauljaminet.com
DATE: 3/19/2003 03:19:00 PM
What is also troubling; the apparent trend on the part of the Vatican and the Holy Father himself to value "peace" itself as the highest and greatest good, which nothing can be allowed to hinder, even though some monstrous deeds can occur while "peace" exists.
Further, I sense Catholicism moving toward a philosophy that nothing is worth fighting for, noting is worth dying for, and violence is never justified under any circumstances.
As Paul points out so eloquently in his essay, this is at variance with nearly 2000 years of Christian teaching.
I'm not a Catholic so I frankly I can't see why believers follow the doctrine of papal infallibility?
Or am I mistaken in thinking said doctrine remains in force?
Anyway you would think church officials would make more of an effort to get medieval on paedophile priests.
Larry -
I agree - traditionally "peace" does not mean only the absence of force, but also the absence of the threat of force. Saddam's dictatorship makes perpetual threat of force; therefore we are not at peace and cannot be until he is overthrown. This was the keystone of my argument in support of war, linked earlier in the comments.
Though some Catholics may hold that nothing is worth dying for, I don't believe that this is the Pope's view; certainly it wasn't when he wrote "The Splendor of Truth" and quoted Juvenal.
Ali -
The Pope is not infallible when he speaks as a person; popes can speak infallibly only "from the chair of the Church" (ex cathedra in Latin), that is, when they are articulating the voice of the whole Christian church through its 2000 year history. The reasoning is that everyone, across cultures and time, could not have believed something unless God's spirit taught us that something -- and God is infallible. Popes are not free to declare teachings infallible in the absence of continuous support for that teaching throughout Christian history.
And yes, the Church's response to child molesters has been shamefully unChristian.
pj:
That seems halfway reasonable.
But then why was Lord Acton opposed to it?
Paul,
Thanks for your thoughtful post. I wonder if you've oversimplified the manner in which the Catholic Church arrives at its current statements on war with Iraq and thus conclude that it has drifted from "gospel and tradition from which Church officials derive their authority." In your section that starts with "Traditional Catholic teaching integrates hundreds of Bible passages . . . " you don't seem to acknowledgement that the Sacraments, the words and actions of Christ, are and have always been at the heart of the Church. The Gospel is received and interpreted and the Tradition is shaped and preserved by and within the believing community that forms around the Eucharist and is guided by the Holy Spirit. But don't take my word for it: cf. Lumen Gentium
.
When you write "I believe, further, that the Vatican's recent "evolution" in just war doctrine, apparently away from Biblical principles toward the beliefs of modern European progressives, is mistaken" I again see an oversimplified notion of "Biblical principles" (e.g. how did they become "Biblical" and "principles" except from within a believing community animated by the Spirit?), but I also wonder about the use of "evolution." Saying that Church Teaching evolves our understanding is a bit oblique; saying that it *deepens* our understanding seems more accurate. Even if one accepts the mechanism you propose, I'm not sure one can really separate "European" anything from the historical influence of the Church enough to say the Church is evolving "toward the beliefs of modern European progressives," but that's another issue.
I'm grateful for your fine and provocative post.
Paul,
Thanks for your thoughtful post. I wonder if you've oversimplified the manner in which the Catholic Church arrives at its current statements on war with Iraq and thus conclude that it has drifted from "gospel and tradition from which Church officials derive their authority." In your section that starts with "Traditional Catholic teaching integrates hundreds of Bible passages . . . " you don't seem to acknowledgement that the Sacraments, the words and actions of Christ, are and have always been at the heart of the Church. The Gospel is received and interpreted and the Tradition is shaped and preserved by and within the believing community that forms around the Eucharist and is guided by the Holy Spirit. But don't take my word for it: cf. Lumen Gentium
.
When you write "I believe, further, that the Vatican's recent "evolution" in just war doctrine, apparently away from Biblical principles toward the beliefs of modern European progressives, is mistaken" I again see an oversimplified notion of "Biblical principles" (e.g. how did they become "Biblical" and "principles" except from within a believing community animated by the Spirit?), but I also wonder about the use of "evolution." Saying that Church Teaching evolves our understanding is a bit oblique; saying that it *deepens* our understanding seems more accurate. Even if one accepts the mechanism you propose, I'm not sure one can really separate "European" anything from the historical influence of the Church enough to say the Church is evolving "toward the beliefs of modern European progressives," but that's another issue.
I'm grateful for your fine and provocative post.
MarkDB -
I used "evolution" (in quotes) because the Vatican has itself used that term -- see, for instance, the FoxNews column quoted in my post. The "experts" cited by FoxNews are merely acknowledging that today's Vatican statements differ from those of Aquinas. This difference has appeared only in recent decades.
I spoke of evolution "apparently" toward the ideas of European progressives, because despite the coincidence of conclusions reached by the Vatican and European progressives, there may not be much coincidence of premises and reasoning there. The Vatican could clear up my confusion on this point by explaining itself more clearly.
While I have doubtless oversimplified many things, I don't believe that anything I wrote conflicts with Lumen Gentium, or disputes the embodiment of Christ in the Sacraments of the Church.
Thank you & God bless,
Ali -
I am not expert on the Acton controversy, but I believe he thought that God's Providence might be inadequate to prevent popes from abusing the power of the papacy by declaring as infallible doctrines that had not, in fact, always been supported by the church.
One interesting point that Mr. Johnson raises is that while the "evolution" may have made sense when war looked like it inevitably became total (WWI & II) or even threatened human existence (potential nuclear armageddon) it makes far less sense now that wars are once again rather minor and self-contained. It may be harder to make a case for liberating the Soviet Union at the risk of millions dead than for liberating Iraq at the risk of thousands or tens of thousands.
Posted by: oj at March 19, 2003 5:34 PMoj -
I think war makes more sense today than ever, for reasons I may eventually spell out in another long essay. Basically, I think in the nuclear age, and with free societies so much more technologically advanced, economically strong, and militarily powerful than totalitarian states, the totalitarian states will wage war against the free states through proxies, rather than openly. Iraq uses al Qaeda and Afghanistan against the U.S. and Hamas/Arafat against Israel. Had France wanted to wage war against the U.S., it would have cultivated Iraq as a proxy. This war-by-terrorist-and-client-state-proxy relies on the difficulty democratic states have going to war without conclusive proof of wrongdoing. But if democracies never respond, then in an age of nuclear and biotech proliferation they will eventually be destroyed.
Therefore, to deal with the increasing risks to democracies from nuclear terror, the burden of proof in war will have to decrease. This I think is the reason the Bush administration introduced the concept of "preemptive war," even though it was unnecessary to justify the Iraq war.
Acton did not believe their was the historical justification for the doctrine of papal infallibility. And since he was supposed to know more about the history of the church than any other man alive, his opinion should have carried weight.
The pope had a better argument. He silenced Acton, who, in a decision that long mystified me, acquiesced.
Up to this point, you now know everything you need to know about the Catholic Chruch's value a a moral guide to politics.
Recently, however, I have read Acton's secular political speeches. Previously I had read only his ecclesiastical works.
The man was a nitwit.
And the prototype pro-Confederacy libertarian.
Posted by: oj at March 19, 2003 8:07 PMHarry: I'm sorry you're no longer Catholic, and sorry you have such a skewed vision of the Church. It is not a democracy, but to say that it is totalitarian is to say that every Christian Church is so (or at least, every Christian Church that still believes in God).
PJ: Great piece; I'd disagree with some of the middle bits, but overall, a remarkable analysis.
Harry - I'm sure if the Pope could speak to you he would apologize, and ask your forgiveness, on behalf of the Church. If your local church was "totalitarian," then it was not faithful to the Christian gospel. Will you not forgive?
Posted by: Paul Jaminet at March 20, 2003 7:40 AMVery interestng back and forth, all. Great commenting here.
PJ: Osama bin Laden indeed believes that a Taliban style of government should conquer the world. After all, he believes that the Indonesian annexation of East Timor was a good thing. But it's striking to note that in all his public statements and interviews, not once has he condemned US domestic culture. He does not condemn our consumption of alcohol, or the way we let women vote, or our sexual licentiousness, or Hollywood movies. He has never demanded that we impose shari'a (Koranic law) upon ourselves. He solely and relentlessly condemns American policies towards Muslim countries.
Al Quaeda terrorists and their ilk don't see themselves as engaged in wars of conquest; they consider their struggles to be defensive jihads, last ditch efforts to defend their countries and the community of all Muslims from the infidels. They work to expel foreign, non-Muslim influences from Muslim countries and hope to overthrow Muslim governments they don't consider Islamic enough. So they attempt to drive the US military out of Arab states, and attack foreigners in Muslim countries, and attack Christians in Pakistan, and assassinate government officials. The emphasis is on purifying Muslim countries, not conquering infidels.
If America acceded to all of Osama's demands, would he still hate America? Yes, of course he would. But attacking America would be near the bottom of Al Quaeda's priority list. Far more important to them is defending Muslims from infidelic persecution. So they would turn their efforts to Russia and India, hoping to "liberate" Chechnya and Kashmir. This is already happening in Chechnya - many Saudi Arabian jihadi have gone there to join the righteous struggle, just as they once joined the struggle against Russia in Afghanistan.
Peter:
How could he then tolerate American media, infiltrating and corrupting the Islamic world?
He would impose the Taliban's policy of banning all TVs and radios.
Posted by: Peter Caress at March 20, 2003 5:22 PM