A Catholic website for the modern reader
San Bernardino
The New Final Solution
No one individual has contributed more to the English language than William Shakespeare. Words, expressions and turns of phrase abound in the lexicon, all owing to him. So all-encompassing was his facility with vocabulary that he has enriched the speech of even the modestly educated. And yet for all his brilliant writing skills, his sense of drama and passion, his grasp of good and evil, and his insights into the human heart, there is one area in which he glaringly failed. William Shakespeare had no idea how to end the human violence he so easily penned in his writings. He came close once.
In “Henry VI” we read, “The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.’’ In context it is a declaration of the need for law and order, for the words are spoken not by a protagonist, but by Dick the Butcher, a follower of the rebel Jack Cade. Dick the Butcher knew that if things were to change someone, some “lot” of someones, had to die. In that regard not much has changed over the last 500 years. If we want things to change, some “lot” of someones has to die. We just have to make sure we target the right collective.
With the new surge in terrorism, many groups want to kill each other. But there is no order in mere desire. I say, “Kill them all.” But we need a carefully crafted process. And we can gleam one from the last 100 years.
In 1948 India was emerging as a country freed from the oppression of the British empire. Mahatma Gandhi, the father of this new nation, was killed by Nathuram Godse, a Hindu extremist. He was only one man and clearly a fanatic. That, however, does not alter the fact that we cannot trust any Hindus. Many of them have been complicit in killing Muslims and Christians for decades. So, first, let’s kill all the Hindus. One terrorist group gone.
In 1995 Timothy McVeigh detonated a truck bomb in front of the Murray Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people and injuring more than 600 hundred others. Again, just one discontented man—a Christian intrigued by white supremacy and anti-government fervor. But where to begin with that? Christians have been killing for centuries, sometimes each other, and sometimes in the name of God. No trust there. So next, let’s kill all the Christians. Another terrorist group gone.
Later that same year, as Israel and Palestine were beginning to see light at the end of a long tunnel of violence, peace seemed within reach. That is, until Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by Yigal Amir, a Jewish religious extremist. Again he was only one person. But as far back as the Old Testament, Jews have been killing often with the illusion that they were acting under their God’s orders. No wonder then, that Rabin’s death paved the way for Benjamin Netanyahu to completely collapse the tunnel of hope and fully extinguish the light of peace, making it easy for Israel to embrace its own style of terrorism. Next move? Let’s kill all the Jews. A third terrorist group gone.
Choices abound for the next group. Let’s pick 2015. A husband and wife team, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, opened fire on a community center in San Bernardino. Two Muslims entranced by the absurdities of Islamic State extremists. This direct attack on the life and values of Western society proved that Muslims cannot be trusted either. That’s no surprise. History shows that beginning with Muhammed (peace be upon him), Islam has waged religious war for more than thirteen hundred years. The next move is clear. Let’s kill all the Muslims.
Some might object, declaring that each of the examples cited above is just one or two people. That’s not the point. Each perpetrator reflects the reality of a larger group. Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz know this. That’s why so many are following their lead in condemning all Muslims, insisting that we keep all Syrian refugees out and register all Muslims already here. But if we’re honest, Muslims are not the only problem. Hindu on Hindu violence, Christian on Christian violence, Jew on Jew violence, Muslim on everybody violence.
Yes, I say, “Let’s kill them all—Hindus, Christians, Jews and Muslims.” Then when all the killing is done, when the religious thirst for death and revenge is quenched, when people need no longer fear religious fanatics, and we are left only with Atheists, I say
AMEN. Peace be upon all.
In “Henry VI” we read, “The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.’’ In context it is a declaration of the need for law and order, for the words are spoken not by a protagonist, but by Dick the Butcher, a follower of the rebel Jack Cade. Dick the Butcher knew that if things were to change someone, some “lot” of someones, had to die. In that regard not much has changed over the last 500 years. If we want things to change, some “lot” of someones has to die. We just have to make sure we target the right collective.
With the new surge in terrorism, many groups want to kill each other. But there is no order in mere desire. I say, “Kill them all.” But we need a carefully crafted process. And we can gleam one from the last 100 years.
In 1948 India was emerging as a country freed from the oppression of the British empire. Mahatma Gandhi, the father of this new nation, was killed by Nathuram Godse, a Hindu extremist. He was only one man and clearly a fanatic. That, however, does not alter the fact that we cannot trust any Hindus. Many of them have been complicit in killing Muslims and Christians for decades. So, first, let’s kill all the Hindus. One terrorist group gone.
In 1995 Timothy McVeigh detonated a truck bomb in front of the Murray Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people and injuring more than 600 hundred others. Again, just one discontented man—a Christian intrigued by white supremacy and anti-government fervor. But where to begin with that? Christians have been killing for centuries, sometimes each other, and sometimes in the name of God. No trust there. So next, let’s kill all the Christians. Another terrorist group gone.
Later that same year, as Israel and Palestine were beginning to see light at the end of a long tunnel of violence, peace seemed within reach. That is, until Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by Yigal Amir, a Jewish religious extremist. Again he was only one person. But as far back as the Old Testament, Jews have been killing often with the illusion that they were acting under their God’s orders. No wonder then, that Rabin’s death paved the way for Benjamin Netanyahu to completely collapse the tunnel of hope and fully extinguish the light of peace, making it easy for Israel to embrace its own style of terrorism. Next move? Let’s kill all the Jews. A third terrorist group gone.
Choices abound for the next group. Let’s pick 2015. A husband and wife team, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, opened fire on a community center in San Bernardino. Two Muslims entranced by the absurdities of Islamic State extremists. This direct attack on the life and values of Western society proved that Muslims cannot be trusted either. That’s no surprise. History shows that beginning with Muhammed (peace be upon him), Islam has waged religious war for more than thirteen hundred years. The next move is clear. Let’s kill all the Muslims.
Some might object, declaring that each of the examples cited above is just one or two people. That’s not the point. Each perpetrator reflects the reality of a larger group. Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz know this. That’s why so many are following their lead in condemning all Muslims, insisting that we keep all Syrian refugees out and register all Muslims already here. But if we’re honest, Muslims are not the only problem. Hindu on Hindu violence, Christian on Christian violence, Jew on Jew violence, Muslim on everybody violence.
Yes, I say, “Let’s kill them all—Hindus, Christians, Jews and Muslims.” Then when all the killing is done, when the religious thirst for death and revenge is quenched, when people need no longer fear religious fanatics, and we are left only with Atheists, I say
AMEN. Peace be upon all.
Is It Too Soon?
03/12/15 18:39 Filed in: Gun Violence | Terrorism
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015, America suffered yet another mass shooting. This one took place in San Bernardino at the Inland Regional Center. Caring for more than 31,000 persons with disabilities, it is the largest such center in the State of California. At this writing, 14 people are dead and 21 injured.
Once again the people of the United States reacted with shock, anger, bewilderment and disbelief. Although it is questionable that disbelief should be among those reactions. After all, this has become almost commonplace with more mass shootings occurring in the United States than in any other country. The reasons are many and cannot be blamed merely on the possession of guns. The fact that this occurred in California, the state with perhaps the most stringent gun legislation, indicates the complexity of the problem.
And yet, as President Obama has stressed frequently, we cannot continue to abide this kind of senseless violence. Finding a solution means stitching together many pieces of the puzzle, but clearly one of them must be sensible gun legislation. California’s neighboring states do not have the same laws, making it easy to bring guns across the border. Further complicating the issue is that the guns used in this shooting were legally purchased in Southern California. We need some kind of national legislation.
In the wake of yet another of these rampages, several legislators have called for just such legislation aimed at preventing future attacks. But on Thursday morning, state assemblyman Marc Steinorth on a radio interview stated that he was offended that anyone would be talking about gun laws when they should be responding to needs of the victims and their families.
My response to the assemblyman is that offense cuts both ways. I am offended, righteously so, that Steinorth would seek to manipulate this tragedy by attempting to divert and control the public discourse from a conversation long ignored by many politicians. His comment suggested, or at least implied, that caring for victims precludes talking about what created these victims in the first place. The illogic escapes me. Perhaps he is uncomfortable confronting his own complicity in the easy access people have to guns in this nation. Doubtful. Like too many politicians, he is in the pocket of the National Rifle Association and seduced by an illusion of second amendment rights.
Steinorth, like every other politician, knows that the further removed we become from tragedies like the one in San Bernardino, the less willing we are to discuss the causes. The result is, we don’t. And so the gun lobby cements its irrational hold on state and federal legislatures.
I have looked back over the statements made by NRA representatives each time one of these shootings takes place. These men are masters at deflection and deceit. One might expect that if the NRA were committed to legitimately lofty ideals, they would defend the possession of rifles for hunting and possibly even target practice. Every thoughtful person knows that there is no legitimate reason for the possession of assault weapons, other than to kill as many people as possible or to fire the testosterone of insecure and usually aging men. As for handguns, their only purpose is to kill—period.
Perhaps the real tragedy is that the number of people killed in mass shootings make up a very small percent of the total killed by guns every year in the United States. Mass shootings merely focus our attention for too brief a time.
The United States has always been a country in the pursuit of peace, but it has never been a country at peace. The proliferation of weapons, in particular handguns and assault rifles, fully guarantees it never will be.
If now is not the time to talk about gun legislation, when is? Some politicians would have us believe the answer is never. Instead, they suggest that the problem always resides in the individual. At this point, the motives for Wednesday’s killings are yet to be determined. Were Syed Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik terrorists? Was this a workplace dispute? Or perhaps a little of both? Was the Inland Center the original target or mere an expedient one? We will know more in the days and weeks ahead. Still, there is one thing that this shooting has in common with all the others: no one can deny that dozens of people would be alive today were it not for the guns.
It is not by accident that the Declaration of Independence lists “life” as the first of the unalienable rights endowed on all people by their creator. If we want to be a peaceful society, if we want to secure that right to life for everyone, it is not too soon to engage the nation in a long overdue discussion about what kind of laws will make these tragedies less likely to be repeated. “Steinorth, are you listening?”
Once again the people of the United States reacted with shock, anger, bewilderment and disbelief. Although it is questionable that disbelief should be among those reactions. After all, this has become almost commonplace with more mass shootings occurring in the United States than in any other country. The reasons are many and cannot be blamed merely on the possession of guns. The fact that this occurred in California, the state with perhaps the most stringent gun legislation, indicates the complexity of the problem.
And yet, as President Obama has stressed frequently, we cannot continue to abide this kind of senseless violence. Finding a solution means stitching together many pieces of the puzzle, but clearly one of them must be sensible gun legislation. California’s neighboring states do not have the same laws, making it easy to bring guns across the border. Further complicating the issue is that the guns used in this shooting were legally purchased in Southern California. We need some kind of national legislation.
In the wake of yet another of these rampages, several legislators have called for just such legislation aimed at preventing future attacks. But on Thursday morning, state assemblyman Marc Steinorth on a radio interview stated that he was offended that anyone would be talking about gun laws when they should be responding to needs of the victims and their families.
My response to the assemblyman is that offense cuts both ways. I am offended, righteously so, that Steinorth would seek to manipulate this tragedy by attempting to divert and control the public discourse from a conversation long ignored by many politicians. His comment suggested, or at least implied, that caring for victims precludes talking about what created these victims in the first place. The illogic escapes me. Perhaps he is uncomfortable confronting his own complicity in the easy access people have to guns in this nation. Doubtful. Like too many politicians, he is in the pocket of the National Rifle Association and seduced by an illusion of second amendment rights.
Steinorth, like every other politician, knows that the further removed we become from tragedies like the one in San Bernardino, the less willing we are to discuss the causes. The result is, we don’t. And so the gun lobby cements its irrational hold on state and federal legislatures.
I have looked back over the statements made by NRA representatives each time one of these shootings takes place. These men are masters at deflection and deceit. One might expect that if the NRA were committed to legitimately lofty ideals, they would defend the possession of rifles for hunting and possibly even target practice. Every thoughtful person knows that there is no legitimate reason for the possession of assault weapons, other than to kill as many people as possible or to fire the testosterone of insecure and usually aging men. As for handguns, their only purpose is to kill—period.
Perhaps the real tragedy is that the number of people killed in mass shootings make up a very small percent of the total killed by guns every year in the United States. Mass shootings merely focus our attention for too brief a time.
The United States has always been a country in the pursuit of peace, but it has never been a country at peace. The proliferation of weapons, in particular handguns and assault rifles, fully guarantees it never will be.
If now is not the time to talk about gun legislation, when is? Some politicians would have us believe the answer is never. Instead, they suggest that the problem always resides in the individual. At this point, the motives for Wednesday’s killings are yet to be determined. Were Syed Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik terrorists? Was this a workplace dispute? Or perhaps a little of both? Was the Inland Center the original target or mere an expedient one? We will know more in the days and weeks ahead. Still, there is one thing that this shooting has in common with all the others: no one can deny that dozens of people would be alive today were it not for the guns.
It is not by accident that the Declaration of Independence lists “life” as the first of the unalienable rights endowed on all people by their creator. If we want to be a peaceful society, if we want to secure that right to life for everyone, it is not too soon to engage the nation in a long overdue discussion about what kind of laws will make these tragedies less likely to be repeated. “Steinorth, are you listening?”