catapult magazine

Bush said today that “terror is not the tool of the free.” Turn the sentence around and it reads, “terror is the tool of the unfree.” Somehow I doubt if Bush thought through the implications of that sentence.

Why does what Bush says matter? Because his words have ramifications. I can appreciate that he is making short speeches suitable even for quasi-illiterate audiences, but if we’re going to continue to insist that the most powerful man on earth means what he says and that what he says has meaning, then his words deserve to be studied. Some conclusions one can draw from his rhetoric that are troubling:

1. If (America = Freedom), then the rest of the world must be crazy for not supporting America. This also implies that all other forms of freedom are invalid. Also if (America = freedom) how come America is holding 600 people indefinitely in Guantanamo Bay without charges and without any rights?

2. If (terrorists = Iraqi nationalists or freedom fighters), then (America = oppressor).

3. If (Saddam is responsible for 9-11 in any way), then how come there is no proof? Bush and others implied this many times. Did they lie?

4. If (democracy in the Middle East will eliminate terrorism) where’s the evidence for this?

5. If (freedom can be imposed) on a country, is it really freedom? And if Iraqis democratically elect a Shia Muslim cleric who turns the country into an anti-American theocracy like Iran (a possiblity) will America let the Iraqis have what they want?

6. If (attacking Iraq made America safer) someone please show me the logic on this one.

7. If the US is fighting “the terrorists…in Iraq, so that we don’t have to face them in our own country” (Bush quote) then is this whole thing really about setting Iraq free, or is it about keeping Iraq violent so that America can be free?

Words are important! Bush talks of freedom, but he is directly responsible for the unfreedom of some of the most unfree people on earth. Read this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1098604,00.html Doesn’t that make you wonder about the words “freedom” and “terrorist” coming from the lips of President Bush?

That’s the point I was making. Your definitions weren’t quite satisfactory yet.

Then let me introduce another category related to terror:

states who sponsor primary and secondary terrorism (no definition required)

Since we’re defining tactics of terror, I thought I’d add yet another category of terrorism to the mix:

DIVINE TERROR

Since Bush claims to be a Christian, he should no doubt be familiar with God’s own tactics of terror used against the Hivites, Canaanites and Hittites in the book of Exodus.
Throughout the Old Testament and on into the Newer Testament, God uses terror to protect Israel ("I will send my terror ahead of you and throw into confusion every nation you encounter…Ex. 23:27) and to scare the shit out of Christians who were giving in to the Roman system (The Book of Revelation) As a believing Christian, Bush ought to be very very careful that he’s defining terror according to the Word of God, rather than by the convictions of American democracy. Because if the definitions are too loosey-goosey, God is a terrorist and His regime of terror must be stopped!

Way to kill the discussion grant! Lucky for Iraqis and Palestinians, Bush doesn’t live in a time when divine-sanctioned genocide is as acceptable as it seems to have been in the Old Testament. Let’s hope that God, like most of us, has changed his mind about genocide (and terror) in the last 4000 years.

Maybe my point wasn’t very clear. I’m trying to judge Bush according to a different standard than an American one. His definition of terror, which he sets in opposition to freedom, is not consistent with that of Scripture, where terror is used for good or ill. Fear, even terror, is not in and of itself evil. A person who has murdered another human being does not have an adequate amount of fear of the law or of God’s wrath. Part of the reason you didn’t understand my point, dan, is because you’re stuck on this popular multiculturalist stance right now that reads everything like what I said as a call to genocide. Way to jump to conclusions, dan!

Your reading of the Old Testament as a story of various genocides is itself a violent reading. When was the last time you really read the stories? The violence and war of the Old Testament is not understood to be a good thing. It’s because of the terrible violence of the OT that Christ’s birth becomes such a peaceful and joyful occasion! The whole story is about God offering an alternative for the evil human regime of Babel and the inadequacies of Israel by giving us the Holy Spirit, the spirit of joyful communion between ALL TRIBES, NATIONS, AND LANGUAGES. Where do you think YOUR sacred conviction about the dignity and value of all peoples comes from?! Do you think postmodern society just happened to discover it after WWII? Rather than attack Scripture and God for being so fickle (according to your own “informed” opinion), you ought to reread the story of the Bible and remember that the understanding of the value of human life was a gift from God long before postmodern multiculturalism (which you claim can see so much clearer than God what God did wrong for the last 4,000 years or so) came to “realize” (theorize) it.

If that’s the case why do you seem so keen on emphasizing Christ as bringer of discord, and God as terrorizer?

A straightforward question to all:
Do you think it was fine for the people of Israel to slaughter the Canaanites so that they could take over the promised land?

To show that I’m not reading violence into the Old Testament…below are examples from the book of Joshua where God smiles on mass killings. How does a Christian deal with this?

Joshua 6 (Jericho destroyed)
20 When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it-men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.

Joshua 8 (Ai destroyed)
24 When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. 25 Twelve thousand men and women fell that day-all the people of Ai. 26 For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed ¹ all who lived in Ai. 27 But Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city, as the LORD had instructed Joshua.
28 So Joshua burned Ai and made it a permanent heap of ruins, a desolate place to this day.

Joshua 10 (Various Massacres)
28 That day Joshua took Makkedah. He put the city and its king to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it. He left no survivors. And he did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho.
29 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Makkedah to Libnah and attacked it. 30 The LORD also gave that city and its king into Israel’s hand. The city and everyone in it Joshua put to the sword. He left no survivors there. And he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho.
31 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Libnah to Lachish; he took up positions against it and attacked it. 32 The LORD handed Lachish over to Israel, and Joshua took it on the second day. The city and everyone in it he put to the sword, just as he had done to Libnah. 33 Meanwhile, Horam king of Gezer had come up to help Lachish, but Joshua defeated him and his army-until no survivors were left.
34 Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Lachish to Eglon; they took up positions against it and attacked it. 35 They captured it that same day and put it to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it, just as they had done to Lachish.
36 Then Joshua and all Israel with him went up from Eglon to Hebron and attacked it. 37 They took the city and put it to the sword, together with its king, its villages and everyone in it. They left no survivors. Just as at Eglon, they totally destroyed it and everyone in it.
38 Then Joshua and all Israel with him turned around and attacked Debir. 39 They took the city, its king and its villages, and put them to the sword. Everyone in it they totally destroyed. They left no survivors. They did to Debir and its king as they had done to Libnah and its king and to Hebron.
40 So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD , the God of Israel, had commanded. 41 Joshua subdued them from Kadesh Barnea to Gaza and from the whole region of Goshen to Gibeon. 42 All these kings and their lands Joshua conquered in one campaign, because the LORD , the God of Israel, fought for Israel.

As I said before, fear and terror is not in and of itself evil. We should be afraid in the presence of the God of Abraham. The presence of God reminds us of our impotence and sinfulness as human beings. When Christ comes, however, we are welcomed to the table, to the most intimate relationship, with this fearsome God. Now that Christ has come, any reading of the Old Testament must be done in Christ’s Spirit so that the violence can be seen in its proper context.

As for the imagery I was referring to from The Book of Revelation, God promises the persecuted Christians that he will pour out his wrath on those who do not fear Him. In the case of Revelation, His wrath is promised to be visited upon the Roman empire and its all-encompassing economic system based on the worship of idols. Those who do not fear God and God’s history-making power are made to fear God because that’s the only way to get through to a stubborn people—a case made time and time again in the OT, from the plagues brought upon Egypt to the Jews being led into exile in Babylon.

Having said that, I don’t want to downplay the importance of this question about God participating in (I don’t think “smiling on” is accurate) mass killings. Reading these troublesome passages forces us to recognize the huge gap between present-day multiculturalist thinking and the thinking of Scripture, which we are called to conform to as good Protestants. And we could add several more passages, the greatest example being the time God saw fit to destroy the whole earth with the Flood, selecting only one family and forgetting the rest of humankind! That’s the very definition of “mass killing”…at least from a human standpoint. In contrast to The Flood, God was relatively merciful in selecting only one tribe at a time when He helped Israel destroy its enemies later in the OT.