_____Letters__________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________

Seduced by terrorists?

In “The Looming Showdown,” Philip Lawler states that Islamic terrorists “do not criticize the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.” Has Lawler been listening to the propaganda of Osama bin Laden and his Taliban cohorts? What does he suppose that bin Laden thinks about freedom of expression, freedom of religion, separation of Church and state, the proscription against “cruel and unusual punishment,” or the right of women to vote—all of which are enshrined in our Constitution?

Lawler presents an image of America that is a bastion of corruption, spilling its filth into the righteous Islamic world. To read his editorial, one would conclude that America is all about abortion, sodomy, Hollywood sleaze, MTV, and Disney World—and nothing more. He is so caught up in the evils of our great country that he is utterly blind to that which is good about it—to those democratic propositions and sacred freedoms set forth in our Constitution: freedoms for which soldiers—including tens of thousands of Catholic soldiers—have perished on the battlefields.

Lawler even goes so far as to parrot the words of left-wing commentator Bill Maher in opining that, whatever else one thinks about the deluded and diabolical suicide-slaughterers of 5,500, they were not “cowards.”

A man of faith himself, Lawler has been seduced by the misguided piety of the terrorists, who do not fear to invoke God. They are not our moral allies.

—James Andrew Quigley of Arlington, Virginia

The motto of the scholastic theologians was “Distinguo!” It is (or should be) a habit of the Catholic mind to draw careful distinctions, avoid the rush to overly broad judgments.

No, terrorists are certainly not our allies. Nor is the US inherently evil. There is a great deal that is noble and good in our country, and especially in our Constitution. But our defense of what is valuable will only be encumbered if we try, at the same time, to defend what is corrupt.

As a matter of fact I do listen to the propaganda of Osama bin Laden, in an effort to comprehend our enemy. While I have no doubt that he would disapprove of the US Constitution, he does not make it the focus of his diatribes. Our political freedoms may offend him, but it is our moral weakness that he cites when he tries—all too often, successfully—to recruit new followers.

And by the way, the US Constitution does not enshrine the “separation of Church and state.” — The Editor

Free to disagree

After reading Philip F. Lawler’s Essay, “The Looming Showdown” (October 2001), I couldn’t help but think that the US was responsible for the world’s problems. We are a country of humans. Unfortunately, humans sin. Therefore there must be occasions when the country sins. But we are also one of the freest countries in the world. And with that freedom comes many varied opinions and beliefs.

Lawler says that these “zealots speak instead about the moral decadence of Hollywood and MTV.” No, these zealots speak against the freedom that allows for the likes of Hollywood and MTV. We, in this country, are free to speak out against the policies of Hollywood and MTV. In most Middle Eastern countries you don’t dare speak out against their policies.

Another unfortunate circumstance of freedom is the legalization of abortion. I, like Philip Lawler, am against abortion. But I am not in fear of my life when I speak out against it; that’s my freedom.

Why do they hate us? They hate us because a free people is more difficult to control. We may not like some of the things or policies of our country, but we are free to disagree and disagree with passion.

I, like Philip Lawler, put my faith in the cross. But we must remember that this country is made up not only of Christians but also of Jews, Muslims, and unfortunately agnostics and atheists. I would have no problem with placing a cross at Ground Zero, but many others would. The flag is a symbol of our unity; why cause disunity?

We must pray and pray hard. We must pray for ourselves, our country, and our enemies, because we are not the only sinners. The real Great Satan arrived on our shores on September 11, 2001.

—Ronald A. Franz of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

No; the “real” Satan is not such a recent arrival. He has always been active on American shores, as he has been active everywhere else throughout the world since the Fall.

Freedom is a very great gift. But the invocation of our freedoms is not an adequate answer to every criticism of American policies. I rejoice that we can protest against abortion without fear for our lives; but I do fear for the lives of unborn children. And if our freedom to proclaim the Gospel is circumscribed by the limits of what other people might possibly consider offensive—a constraint which somehow is not placed upon the cultural icons of Hollywood and MTV—then we have sacrificed our freedom in the name of a false consensus. —The Editor

Gospels and “coincidences”

Your Essay, “The Looming Showdown,” was magnificent! Of course we prideful humans always say that when someone agrees with us. I am just grateful that my thinking can parallel that of someone with your wisdom and stature.

In your Essay, you make note of the significance of the Mass readings just two days after the bombing, and also that the feast of the Triumph of the Cross came just days later. At the time I was deeply moved by these seeming “coincidences”—which of course are not without purpose. God knows what He is doing. He is in control, however much we try to deny it. I have always loved this definition of coincidence: “a minor miracle in which God remains anonymous.”

Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell took a lot of heat for their comments after September 11. In my opinion their only problem—a gigantic one, however—was that they lacked “a prophet’s heart.” A prophet weeps first for his own sin and then for the people’s. The two of them simply pointed fingers; to their credit, they later realized their error.

—Dick Reeder of Green Village, New Jersey

Israel and her Islamic enemies

Your article “The Looming Showdown” makes some very valid points. We should not ask young Americans to die for MTV and Disney World. However, one paragraph in the article reflects poorly on CWR’s standards of truth and objectivity, both by what it says, and what it leaves out.

You say that Israel, “drives Palestinian families from their homes, shuts down their shops and schools, restricts their movement . . . sends tanks into Palestinian towns on the West Bank . . . cancels a meeting with Yasser Arafat . . . rejects a cease-fire offer . . . makes absolutely no sacrifices in support of the US war on terrorism . . . makes it clear that American support for Israel is a one-way street.” This has to be one of the most slanted, one-sided statements of the situation in the Middle East that I have seen. There is no mention that Israel is responding to Palestinian terror attacks and suicide bombings, or the Palestinian failure to implement a cease-fire of only a couple of days before having peace talks, their education of their youth that the elimination of Israel is their objective, and the United States efforts to keep Israel at arm’s length, just as in the Persian Gulf War, in order to recruit Arab allies.

I would point out a few items from the same issue of CWR in the World Watch section:

• Holy Land – “the chief Islamic leader of Jerusalem has praised suicide bombers as the most noble of all men.”
• Lebanon – “Lebanese soldiers arrested about 250 Christian leaders of an anti-Syrian faction.”
• Saudi Arabia – “The Christian community in Saudi Arabia continues to suffer restrictions on their religious freedom.”
• Afghanistan – “On August 1, Afghanistan’s Muslim Taliban government announced that it had arrested 24 foreign and local employees of an international aid agency and would put them on trial for teaching Christianity.”
• Pakistan – “Pakistan’s blasphemy laws—which prescribe the death sentence for those who by words, either spoken or written . . . directly or indirectly defile the sacred name of the Holy Prophet—are increasingly being used against Christians.”
• Indonesia – “. . . Christians in Jakarta were worried by explosions in two different churches.”
• Philippines – “. . . Killings by Muslim separatists in the southern Philippines, with Catholics as the principal victims.”
• Sudan – “The Islamic government in Khartoum continues to use air strikes against civilian villages as a regular part of its strategy to defeat rebels operating out of the predominately Christian south of Sudan.”

Israel has its faults, just as we have ours. But given your own reporting of the news from around the Muslim world, where would you find the greater amount of justice and where would you rather live: Israel, or an Islamic Palestinian state?

—Allan Smiley of Cold Spring, Kentucky

Distinguo! A criticism of Israeli policies is not a defense of Palestinian terrorism. The listing of news items from one issue of CWR should be enough to dispel any notion that we turn a blind eye to Islamic violence. It is beyond doubt that some Palestinians use immoral tactics. But that fact does not justify the use of immoral tactics in the Israeli government’s response.

There are important political distinctions to be made here as well. A minority of Palestinians engage in terrorist activities, but a majority of the Palestinian people suffer when their villages are closed. The destruction of homes and closing of schools do not punish terrorists, but these actions do cause suffering among innocent people. Finally, while the policies of many Arab states deserve censure, these states are not closely identified with, or supported by, the US. America’s long (and often solitary) support for Israel gives Washington some leverage over Israeli policies, and therefore some responsibility for Israel’s offenses against human rights.

Personally, I would not want to live anywhere in the Middle East as long as religious intolerance remains the norm there — The Editor

Middle East Bias

It is alarming to read your recent description of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (“The Looming Showdown” & “World Watch” October 2001). It sets off bells to any person concerned with an honest picture of that tragedy. Both depictions ignore the suffering of Israelis and the legitimate rights of the state of Israel.

One-sided accounts and their implicit moral evaluations are standard in Arab media. Has Catholic World Report fallen prey to the same sin?

Aside from falsely claiming that Israel rejected a cease-fire proposal, the articles cite only Israeli military actions without once mentioning Palestinian violence. Palestinians have intentionally murdered more than 100 Israeli civilians last year: They blew-up 18 teenagers in a Tel Aviv discotheque and 15 children in a Jerusalem pizzeria. Like America, Israel has the responsibility to protect its citizens with military action and destroy terrorism.

No government or policy is above moral critique, particularly from religious leaders. All should be held accountable to—in recent words of the Catholic bishops—”respect the rights and dignity of every human person.” But biased accounts often critique more than Israeli policy. They grow out of an immoral vision that denies the legitimacy of Israel.

Contradicting Vatican recognition of Israel and denunciation of anti-Semitism, it denies Jews the right of a homeland that is accorded to all other people. Martin Luther King Jr. long ago recognized this truth:

Let the truth ring from the mountain tops; let it echo through the valleys of God’s green earth: Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land . . . And what is anti-Zionism? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right . . . It is discrimination against the Jews, because they are Jews. In short, it is anti-Semitism.

Catholics should better understand radical Arab politics. It takes aim at the theological ground of Christianity. If the Biblical covenant that promises the Jewish people the land of Israel is a “myth,” then Catholic belief is superstition. As Paul understood, if there is no root, there can be no branch. If Jews have no historical connection with Jerusalem, as Yasser Arafat claims, then Christian Scriptures are lies. If there was no Temple in Jerusalem, Jesus was not there as the Gospels maintain.

All of us should be on guard against exploiting religion for political purposes. Both Israelis and Palestinians are enduring great suffering and a just settlement must be found. But the untrue understanding of the Middle East that teaches hatred of Jews, denies the Jewish people their rightful claim to Israel, and falsifies sacred history is not just political. It assaults Christian ethics, theology, and scripture no less than Judaism. Ultimately, it is as anti-Catholic as it is anti-Semitic.

—Dr. Eugene Korn of Director of Interfaith Affairs, Anti-Defamation League of New York, New York

Once again, criticism of Israeli policies does not imply support for Israel’s enemies. But Dr. Korn’s letter goes far beyond the repetition of that familiar fallacy. He implies, inaccurately, that CWR’s editorial stance is at odds with the diplomatic posture of the Holy See. Should we repeat, for his benefit, the many Vatican denunciations of Israeli human-rights abuses, and the many Vatican statements of support for the just demands of the Palestinian people?

Criticism of Israeli policies is also not prima facie evidence of anti-Semitism, and the implication that it does—whether it is made by Dr. Korn or by Martin Luther King —is an offense against civility and intellectual honesty. Where in my Essay, or anywhere else in CWR, is there any hint that the Old Covenant is a “myth,” or that Jews have no historical claim on Jerusalem? In the wild flight of rhetoric with which he concludes this letter, Dr. Korn does not merely go beyond the facts; he runs away from the facts and hides. — The Editor

Would you live in Afghanistan?

I would like to comment on the two main themes of Philip F. Lawler’s article “The Looming Showdown.” I would like to affirm the first theme and take issue with the second.
Lawler’s first theme is to emphasize that, while the terrorist attacks have caused immense suffering, we can be assured that we are participating in Christ’s cross (a symbol of suffering). We do not have to worry about winning or losing the fight against terrorism because Jesus has already defeated every form of evil through the cross. I commend Mr. Lawler for this insightful advice. While we suffer with Christ, we can look forward to his victory.

It is Lawler’s second theme that troubles me. He accurately states that the United States is the world’s main supplier of hedonism in all its forms. Through agencies like USAID, we support the relaxing of traditional family values in many developing countries. I agree that we are guilty of mixing true foreign aid with abortion and contraception. I understand why Islamic countries hate us for doing these things. I agree with Lawler’s implied assertion that we should strive to give true aid so that countries may truly develop.

What I resent is Lawler’s oversimplified contrast of the United States as Sodom and Gomorrah and the Islamic world as the better angels among us. He doesn’t mention that the Taliban funds its terrorist activities by mass production and exportation of heroin! The pure and moral Taliban are drug dealers! Also, the government in Afghanistan stones women who dare to expose the least of their bodies. This is a curious way of encouraging modesty don’t you think? What did Jesus say about sin and stone-throwing? Here is my question to Lawler: Would he rather live in the United States or in Afghanistan?

I agree that the US is supporting and promoting way too much hedonism in our time. I think this is the negative by-product of prosperity. However, Christian virtue has contributed immensely to our prosperity. We should not feel guilty about prosperity justly attained. Rather we should be proud of it. Yes, we produce hedonism here and export it overseas. But we also deal with our sins and crimes in a less criminal way than some Islamic nations. While I would like to see abortion criminalized, I would never stone to death a woman who procured one. Laws are meant to guide and help us in reforming our behavior. They are not meant to be excuses for us to kill and maim those who violate them. What would have happened to Our Lady had not Joseph decided to divorce her quietly? Her own society would have stoned her to death.

I suggest that Lawler balance his moral critique by weighing in on certain Islamic governments that mete out “justice” upon their own citizens in a way that can only be described as barbaric.

—Nick Costello of Wheeling, Illinois

This criticism would be amply warranted, if I had stated or even implied that there is anything admirable about the Taliban regime. I did not. — The Editor

Courage vs. cowardice

I was puzzled by your statement in that essay affirming the “courage” of suicide bombers. You wrote, “Whatever else can be said about suicide bombers, they cannot accurately be described as ‘cowards.’” This curious idea is also mouthed by that liberal luminary, Susan Sontag, in the September 24 New Yorker magazine. There Ms. Sontag states “whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday’s [September 11] slaughter, they were not cowards.” My purpose in drawing this to your attention is not to accuse you of plagiarism (which I doubt) but to alert you to the odd company you are keeping.

Taking cowardice as the absence of courage, it would be well to remember that “courage” or fortitude is first of all a cardinal moral virtue. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1808) “fortitude is the moral virtue that ensures firmness in difficulties and constancy in the pursuit of the good.” It is plain that suicide bombers are not pursuing good when killing innocent persons despite overcoming whatever great difficulties they may face in committing their malevolent deeds. Hence, they and all terrorists, are not exercising the virtue of courage.

Because you placed your thought in quotes, I assume you actually meant something other than the literal statement you made. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, then, I believe that you referred solely to the “physical” courage of the bombers, a natural quality that does not rise to the level of a moral virtue. Only when tied to a good end can we praise physical courage.

To place the question in graphic contrast, consider the ill-fated flight that crashed in Pennsylvania. Several passengers on the flight overcame their fear of death, and acted to accomplish the obvious good of stopping the hijackers. They charged unarmed at armed men. The terrorists, on the other hand, had simply resigned themselves to a heinous act of murder/suicide. Now please tell us which group acted courageously in this scenario.

—Mitchell Ritchie of Jacksonville, Florida

Cowardice may be the absence of courage, but courage is something more than the absence of cowardice. I am not disposed to find virtues in mass murderers. I suggest, instead, that in condemning them—as we must—we make an attempt to be accurate about the nature of their vices. — The Editor

No mere debris

We recently renewed our subscription and received the October issue. Philip Lawler’s article was both informative and provoking. Many would argue that the Stars and Stripes were not planted on a “mound of rubble,” nor was a flag planted on a “pile of debris.” Rather, the rubble and debris is no less than the remains of over 5,000 human beings, from over sixty countries and representing nearly every religion. Truly, this is very sacred “rubble and debris!”

Many in the Catholic media criticize the US’s support of Israel. Yet they forget that many of our influential evangelists, policy-makers, and lawmakers belong to evangelical denominations that teach pre-millennial dispensationalism. Their eschatology requires the physical restoration of Israel. Thus they give Israel carte blanche to persecute all Palestinians—Muslim, Orthodox, and Catholic.

Finally, in response to Archimandrite Mowatt’s letter in the same October, you stated that your publication has treated the Eastern Catholic churches more respectfully than any other publication. Yes, you do treat them respectfully. But so does Catholic Near East, the magazine of the Catholic Near East Welfare Agency.

—Steve Shellyn of Fremont, California

We stand corrected. Catholic Near East provides regular, respectful, and informative articles about the Eastern churches and the people of the Middle East. — The Editor

Back to Catholic World Report December 2001 Table of Contents