Monstrous Saints

By Crispin Sartwell

A generation or two ago, a hard and fascinating question for historians and biographers was this: what were things like in the soul of Hitler? They were asking after the source and nature of profound evil in human personality.

For us, the hard and fascinating question is, what are things like in the soul of a terrorist?

And here's an answer you might not like: the soul of the terrorist is the soul of a saint.

A suicide bomber is an idealist with an absolute commitment to the ideal, a holy person with an absolute commitment to God, a moralist with an absolute courage of conviction. In short, the suicide bomber is a most extraordinary person.

In any era, and particularly in ours, truly selfless action is rare, and many thinkers (for example, Adam Smith and Ayn Rand, in the spirit of capitalism) have denied that it is possible at all. But in every era, people - especially the young - yearn for selflesssness, yearn to transcend or overcome the self and merge into something greater. They yearn to show by a heroic act that they are not merely self-interested and that they are dedicated in the most serious way to helping their people, or all people, or the world.

It is a romantic yearning, and though selflessness is at its heart it also acts as a claim to be recognized as an extraordinary individual.

No more convincing proof of that sort of moral heroism is possible than being willing to die for one's fellows and one's values and the God in whom one believes. Many of the early Christian saints were willing martyrs, and many secular heroes possess a mystique in virtue of the same qualities: Martin Luther King, Jr., for example, or Abraham Lincoln.

When I was a young man, I wanted to regard myself in this way, and I was willing to commit acts of violence to show the seriousness of my beliefs. In fact, I did blow up some things (but no persons). And even if what I did was wrong, I did it to express a deep and serious moral commitment, to show that I was capable of heroic action.

Now that I'm a middle-aged, middle-class teacher and daddy, I am a better person - less violent and dangerous. I'm also a more cowardly, more mediocre person, a person who's made a thousand safe, self-serving compromises.

I believe that some of the causes championed by terrorists - for example, the preservation of a culture or of a religious tradition or the autonomy of a people (Kurds, Basques, Palestinians) - are worthy causes which demand and justify selfless action. I also believe that blowing people up that are not directly involved in the conflict one is prosecuting is counter-productive and utterly wrong.

But I believe that the impulse of the suicide bomber is fundamentally heroic, though the actions in which it eventuates are monstrous. In many ways it is quite the reverse of the soul of a Hitler: power-mad, ready for murder as a direct aggrandizement of the self. In the terrorist, the greatest good and the greatest evil of which people are capable live in proximity: merge almost into identity.

Terrorism results from the application of moral heroism to a situation in which constructive action seems impossible or real targets inaccessible, though I believe terrorism would be utterly wrong even if that were true, and I also don't think it's true. That is, I believe that, for example, the Israeli military and political machine - the direct instruments of oppression, the people bulldozing your homes and schools - are vulnerable, and that there is all the difference in the world between attacking it and attacking people on a bus or at a party.

But one has to understand how the terrorist arrives at the place where suicide bombing becomes possible. There is a reason that terrorists are often thought of as martyrs and heroes.

The terrorist, like Hitler, shows how horrendously wrong people can be. But the terrorist, as well, shows how extraordinary people can be. In both directions, in other words, she shows that we mediocre people do not really know our own limits, don't know what we're capable of. The suicide bomber is a monstrous saint.

Crispin Sartwell's most recent book is "Extreme Virtue: Truth and Leadership in Five Great American Lives" (SUNY Press, 2003).

a selection of my mail:

First, how dare you compare the moral fiber and
heroism of bloodthirsty, religiously misuided
terroists to 2 of the greatest, most holy of men in
world history such as Dr. King and President Lincoln.

You dirty piece of shit!!

You mentioned that you're a father: let's see how you
feel if it's your child's spinal column they are
pulling out of the next ruins, like a NYPD officer
pulled from the Arthur Kill landfill after 9/11. Let's
see how you feel if your baby's head is presented to
you as what is all that is left of his/her body after
some jerkoff who thinks he is going to see 72 virgins
as long as he kills Americans or Isrealis blows op the
cafe that she and her class are having lunch in.
Knowing an asshole like you, you'll probably blame
America.

They are heroic???????? What the fuck is wrong with
you, asshole?!!!? "in the terroist, the greatest GOOD
merges with the greatest evil?" What the FUCK? I'm
re-reading your article and trying to get your point.
. . .

You attempt to cover your ass by mentioning, faintly,
that the terroist is wrong but, some sort of "saint".
So, what your saying, help me here. . . .so what your
saying is, terroists have are much like Dr. King?
Literally, one of the greatest, most righteous figures
in the last 1000 years and one of the most necessary
of all time. That terroists possess the same fortitude
of Abraham Lincoln who saved this country so fucking
idiots like you, can write fucked up columns, praising
some fucking assholes, who flew planes into buildings,
on American soil killing 3000, you
fucking-piece-of-shit.

To quote YOU dummy: "a suicide bomber is an idealist,
a holy person with an absolute committment to God. . .
.. in short, the suicide bomber is a most
extraordinary person". YOU HAVE GOT TO BE FUCKING
KIDDING ME??? I'll have you know that for the whole of
my life I have been considerd an excellent writer.
Having written hundreds of proposals for business,
letters for business and written well in my journalism
clases in college and beyond. However, I am forced to
lay waste to this letter but lacing it with profanity
because , I really, really, need to convey the
emotions I am feeling.

Let's continue, douchbag, the terroist(suicide bomber)
is an extraordinary idiot. And God, who I garuantee is
heart broken because they dare to invoke his name
while they kill his children is still the God of the
Old Testament as well as the New Book. The same, angry
and vengeful God who said, "I will erase from the
Earth, Ameleck and he will feel my wrath". . . .or
something along those lines. But, I feel sorry for
Amelek. I'm sure as the fuck head, jerkoff,
cocksucking suicide bombers reach the divergence in
the 2 roads, one leading to heaven and one leading to
Hell(your house), I'm sure God can be overheard
saying, in honor of the WTC and in a fine Brooklyn
accent, "I got your 72 virgins right here" . And down
they go!!

You need help. Just so ya' know. I don't even go to
church. So, don't think that I am some right ring
religious fanatic. I'm an American. My Father served
23 years in the Army. He took a bullet for you, YOU
FUCKING ASSHOLE, from some Chinaman in North Korea in
'51 and was paralysed from the waist down for a year
and had to learn to walk again so you could write this
fucking trash and so a fucking rag like the
Philadelphia Inquirer could print it. He also saw and
had to do things in Vietnam for people like you AND
your children. So, some fucking asshole like John
Kerry could come home and play nice with Hanoi Jane.

Monstrous Saints????????????

What a fucking idiot!!

*

Your column in today's Philadelphia Inquirer demonstrates the sad journey of your intellectual life. So you bombed a few things when you were young, and you miss the kick-- including the feeling of being a moralistic Superman with the "self-sacrificing" courage of your convictions. Now, as a writer and "teacher," you're a tad embarrassed by your middle-aged fears, and you long for those old feelings of superiority. My advice: get yourself a Porsche, drive fast, and save us the drivel.

Terrorists as monstrous "saints"? I think not. While one might argue (unreasonably, I would think) that monasteries served as "saint schools" in early Christendom, it was generally extraordinary self-abnegation that lead one to beatification. And, though the early Church sometimes rewarded brutality and hatred with the mantle of sainthood (St. John Chrystostom comes to mind), that wasn't the normal course.

"Modern" Islam, on the other hand, most assuredly has what, according to your lexicon, could only be described as "saint" schools, a system of madrasas that stretches virtually around the world and in which, to a greater or lesser extent, hatred, superiority, and violence are inculcated in children specifically in order to produce generations of terrorists-- or, to you, monstrous saints and martyrs.

Heroism isn't a course of study; it's the bloom of an extraordinary rose. No, don't think of these terrorists as extraordinary-- they're obscenely ordinary; ordinary kids and young adults duped by a corrupt and thoroughly evil hierarchy that sends them-- not to self-abnegation-- but to "rivers of wine and honey and 72 virgins."

Don't think sainthood; think Jonestown.

I don't know about your work generally; but your column today is simply moronic.

*

You expressed some insightful comments into the mind and soul of a suicide bomber. However, your comparisons to other examples of selflessness and sainthood are way off.

Remember that these "suicide" bombers are really "homicide/suicide" bombers out to kill and injure as many people as possible. True, you admit that this is wrong when the victims are not directly involved in the struggle at hand. However, if the bombers were true selfless idealists, they would blow themselves up in some isolated location as a political statement for their cause and make sure that NO victims were hurt. They could easily leave the appropriate suicide note or publicity to further their cause and not be killing or injuring anyone in the process. They could even warn others in advance to get out of their immediate area before their suicide bomb explodes. They would certainly not be packing their bombs with nails, screws and other shrapnel in order to kill and injure as many people as possible (which is what they often do these days).

You imply that these bombers are not after aggrandizement of the self, yet they often celebrate and compete with each other to see who can inflict the most casualties. Is that a reflection of selfless sainthood?

What about the recruiters and handlers of these bombers? Why are most of the bombers young people, many even teenagers? Might it be because they are brainwashed by "leaders" who want to carry out bombing attacks but do not want to use themselves or their own children? Where is the selflessness of these "leaders" who recruit, train and outfit these bombers as they work to convince other people's kids to go to what they self-declare to be paradise? If they claim to seek paradise, why are not the recruiters and handlers the first in line to blow themselves up?

You claim that Hitler was power-mad and ready for murder rather than being selfless. However, was Hitler not out to further his "cause" of racial purity and did he not see himself as an instrument in achieving that goal? Was Hitler not totally dedicated to this goal and gave up his life and the lives of millions of others for this goal? If Hitler is to be rightfully condemned, they why not the suicide/homicide bombers of today? Just because one is dedicated to a cause does not make it admirable.

*

Before Mr. Sartwell gets too misty eyed over the 'heroic' [yet monstrous, i know] suicide bombers he might want to reconsider his analysis of their 'selfless' motives. Or maybe he doesn't think having your family paid a small fortune after a 'mission', meeting 72 virgins in paradise, and having your poster plastered over every wall is self serving. Just because older leaders of these terror groups are able to convince young, gullible, & idealistic members to kill and maim with bribes and heavenly visions does not make them heroic. It makes them rather stupid.

*

Dear Editors:

I thought when the Inquirer Commentary Page recently printed a piece comparing the sincerity of Mel Gibson's 'Passion of Christ' to the ripping out of hearts by pagan priests, a new low was scored in respected journalism, but now we have Crispen Sartwell (3/31/04) comparing terrorists to saints (conditionally monstrous ones because while their motivations are "selfless" their deeds are "wrong").

As horrendous as this piece was, I am grateful for its publication because it exposes the twisted thinking of the much of the religious left, the liberals that protests Bush's war on terrorism, our liberation of Iraq, and our support of Israel. Perhaps Sartwell thinks he has matured ("compromised" in his words) since the days when he did "blow up some things," but he is quite a distance from adulthood. (Ironic, because when I complained to the page's editor about the Gibson piece, his response to me was to "grow up").

Real men, and real saints, know that selfless acts, noble acts, brave acts do not involve the destruction of the defenseless. Saints go to their deaths passively, with love in the hearts for all humanity. Brave men go to their deaths fighting another fighting force that is attacking them and all that they love. Sinners and cowards go to their deaths with hate in their hearts, destroying innocent civilians who cannot defend themselves. Terrorists are hateful sinners, Cartwell, not saints, not even monstrous ones, as the term is an oxymoron. And moronically, it never occurs to Cartwell that evil and hatred can be just as powerful a motivator as love and goodness. But be assured, it is hatred that compels terrorists. Islamic terrorists hate Jews, they hate Americans and they especially hate freedom and democracy that allows people to chose their religion and way of life instead of it being forced upon them, as it is in so much of the Middle East. Their "spiritual" leaders of terrorists have a hatred and fear that their beliefs cannot survive in the free market place of ideas and faiths. Theirs is not the legacy, nor the motivation of saints.

But many liberals just don't get it and Sartwell's thinking underlies much more of American liberalism that many are willing to accept or admit. It is a confused and misguided thinking that misplaces the motivation of deeds and attributes the wrong ideals to both their friends and enemies. Good and evil, love and hatred, terrorism and sainthood become a blur that disables them from distinguishing, or making, proper political decisions and judgments. So while I would normally complain to the Commentary Page editor for publishing such a piece, I instead say 'thank-you,' as you have helped readers understand just where much of the left is coming from.

*

Dear Mr. Sartwell:

I enjoyed your column in today's Philadelphia Inquirer. I only wish your thoughts would spur a national dialogue on the nature of terrorism.

My point of disagreement however, is your belief that it is incumbent upon an oppressed group such as the Palestinians to recognize the "distinction" between the Israeli military and the public. I think those distinctions are clear when there are 2 military bodies at war, but when the Israeli military organization wages war on the Palestinian civilian population, is it reasonable to demand that Palestinian exclude Israeli civilians?

Palestinians seem to believe suicide bombers are the most effective weapon against the Israeli military machine. Does the aggressor have the right to dictate the terms of resistance of the group it is oppressing? When people have been denied self-determination and basic human rights for 50+ years, should we really expect them to continue to "play by the rules?"

*

if that is what you think you are one worthless stupid ignorant worhtless piece of lame brained shit. bill

*

Dear Mr. Sartwell,
Well written, moving commentary but.... I have always struggled with the
ambivalance I feel towards suicide bombers in Israel. The horror of the
results of the act and the horror that drove them to it. It is a moving
perspective to think of them as selfless heros with twisted aim. It is
particularly interesting that so many suicide bombers are not from amongst
the despairing poor, but rather from amongst the educated middle class.
That would add to your argument of their heroism, because they would seem to
be acting from empathy for those who suffer the most rather responding to
their own suffering.

Your article captures that important side of what may be in their hearts,
what started them down the trail of violent resistence, but I think is
missing from your argument a more complex motivation and story which is not
so noble. I think you began but did not follow through with this question.
"Why the targets that they chose in Israel?" Of course the newspapers don't
cover the attacks against Israeli soldiers or settlers very much, so we
think mostly about the buses in Israel. But still why buses? Why Israeli
civilians?

Not only are the people on the bus not directly responsible (though they do
bear some measure of responsibility as a group), but more than that, many of
the people on the bus are workers. Some are bound to be Arabs, many
Mizrakhi or sephardic Jews who have been radicalized by such attacks.
They will not stop taking buses for they have no other means of
transportation. Their death is disturbing, but not as devastating to the
Israeli economy and occupation as other targets would be. Their deaths
brings horrible retributions. And not least, violates the morality of many
supporters.

The answers Palestinians have given me are helpful but not sufficiently- I
still don't fully understand.
They say: buses and restaurants are easy targets. Not only are they
accessible, but with only weak weapons what damage could Palestinains do to
serious economic targets such as a big building. Nothing much. They say,
most attacks are not very planned, despite Israeli press. Its
opportunistic.
They say, killing Israelis is the only way to get the government to listen.
THey do not respect non-violent resistence. Well it hasn't worked yet, has
it? (although I admit it has really hurt the Israeli economy). And Israelis
use the same argument against hte Palestinians. And that hasn't worked
either. And therefore as a method that has not worked so far, its cost for
Palestinians has been unbelievable high. ANd not to forget that most
Palestinian attacks have been in reprisal for assassinations against Hamas
and Al Aqsa members. Not in reprisal for the destruction of an orchard or
the confiscation of a piece of land, or the killing of a child.

Thus these answers are not fully satisfactory. The answers that make more
sense to me - or at least are needed as part of the explanation are ones
which suggest not so noble motives. 1) I have heard from news reports that
Hezbollah offers money for each Israeli killed. I don't know if it is true,
but it would help explain why hit civilians. But of course this would not be
a noble motive.

2). Personal rather than communal anger ie. drive for revenge for family and
friends with disregard for the larger community. Personal aggrandizement,
desire for glorification. "You kill our leaders, we get you and be honored
as martyrs" ... rather than what would be more noble, acts which could
possibly stop the suffering of the Palestinian people. I do not
particularly like this answer, but it helps make sense of the nature of the
attacks.

A young man stands on the roof of a building in Bait Jala. He shoot his
nebish rifle at a nearby settlement of Gilo. It can do nothing. He is
shooting off in anger. A woman I spoke to who lived in a house adjacent
said, "well it was obvious that we would soon be attacked by Apache
helicopters in response to the shooting. I would prefer he would go shoot
at Israelis from somewhere else. But, I understand him. He is so
humiliated. He has nothing to do to save his teenage soul." She suffered
with acceptance. I thought that it was she who was the hero. Not condeming
the young boy though her family had been traumatized by the Israeli counter
attack, her house shot up. This young boy, one can understand him, but I
would not see him as noble because he risked others lives to quiet his soul.

Thus, if suicide bombers or other resistance fighters are rightly seen as
being selflless, offering the ultimate sacrifice.... Then how do you explain
their acts? THere is a contradiction. Why not hit the bulldozer as you
suggested (be careful) or the wall or the unmanned roadblocks- take them
down. (as a group did in Nablus) If I were to think of them, Hamas, Al
aqsa, as selfless, then I still don't understand their targets. It just
doesn't follow. What do you think? How do you explain it?

*

LETTER TO THE EDITOR:

Crispin Sartwell's incomprehensible view of terrorism is mind numbing
("Terrorism: A monstrous sainthood" 3/31). While justifying and
romanticizing horrific acts of violence, he apparently seeks to excuse
himself from any responsibility for his own past behavior, which apparently
includes violent radicalism.

Sartwell's twisted rationale outlines the most convoluted and distorted
mindset imaginable, describing terrorism as saintly, idealistic,
extraordinary, selfless acts of moral heroism. He says "the soul of a
terrorist is the soul of a saint." I suppose if one were to worship evil
and darkness while rejoicing in the cowardly acts of sickly depravity, this
would be the case.

Conversely, he views his middle-class life as a teacher and parent as safe
and cowardly mediocrity. What a sad and frightening statement, and what a
travesty for the young people to whom his influence is entrusted.

Mr. Sartwell's columns should be required reading for anyone who harbors any
doubt that the radical left in this country is disdainful of America's
ideals and values, or that their influence is a threat to our national
security.

*

Sir,

In your profession I'm sure you've heard it said, "everyone has an opinion." Well here is mine.

When I think of sainthood I think of John the Baptist, etc. Individuals who gave up their life because of what they believed, and for NO other reason.

Most of the suicide bombers of the Middle East are rewarded, after their deed is carried out, by an amount of money given to their families. They are but mere pawns and should not be given the elavated status assigned by your article. Be honest with yourself, thier cause is not altruistic.

As for you, how dare you include yourself in the same sentence as Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Abraham Lincoln. These men where up front with their views and what they stood for. You sir, are nothing more than a common criminal who was never arrested and brought to justice for "blowing up a few things." What moral commitment is that. Have you told your children of you "heroic" deeds. You are not a better person because you are a middle-aged, middle-class teacher and daddy. You are just older!

*

Crispin:

I have just read your wonderful piece in The Philadelphia Enquirer. Please
know that I am deeply moved. What touched me the most was your statement
that "Some of the causes championed by terrorists - for example, the
preservation of a culture or of a religious tradition or the autonomy of a
people (Kurds, Basques, Palestinians) - are causes that demand and justify
selfless action."
However I am curious if you would allow members of another oppressed
minority to be included in the above comment.
For example I am a member of one the most persecuted cultures in history. My
group has been enslaved, exiled, slaughtered, raped -you name it for the
past 3,000 years. In fact- it has only been in the past 50 years that we
have been allowed to return to our indigenous homeland.
I suppose you are wondering what group I belong to. Surprise! I am a Jew,
Israeli, Zionist, Kike whatever it is that you want to call me. The nerve of
us not to submit to slaughter like sheep. If perhaps, you had even a little
knowledge of history, you would know that there has never been a century in
the past 2,000 years where we have not been subject to the most horrific
oppression. To briefly summarize: The Roman conquest, Crusades, Black Death
Peasant riots (guess who got blamed for the epidemic), Inquisition, Pogroms,
Holocost and now Arab Homicide Murderers. I could go on and on.
Correct me if I have this wrong. According to your logic, anybody who has
met your definition of oppression has the inalienable right to fight their
oppressors. Any way they can. As such, the Israelis would be justified in
bombing populated areas in response to attacks on their civilians.
The Israelis do not do respond in this matter, even though the U.S. did in
Gulf War I.and II. For example, in March of 2003, the Israeli Army went door
to door in the City of Jenin looking for armed terrorists. 25 Jewish
Soldiers were killed. In accordance with your logic, they would have been
justified bombing the hell out of that city from the air. Perhaps they
should have.
I would love to hear a response from you, however I am not holding my
breath.

But according to your logic, a nation that is being oppressed can fight back
with any means necessary. Therefore Israel is justified in using the most
brutal means.

I support that theory. If I were Sharon, I would use nuclear weapons to rid
the Gaza of the Muslim oppressors as soon as possible.

*

To the Editor:

Crispin Sartwell's commentary on terrorists on 3/31/04 reveals an astounding lack of knowledge of the sophisticated and cruel techniques used by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in recruiting homicide bombers.

Today's Arab terrorist is a coward, sending naive children, and never their own, to die for a cause they have never been allowed to fully understand. There are networks of handlers positioned throughout Palestinian schools and neighborhoods to identify children who are loners, developmentally slow, disaffected, or otherwise easily influenced or coerced into actions they poorly comprehend. They are psychologically abused and 'brainwashed' into believing that murdering Israeli children is a noble act sanctioned by Allah. This process is supported by a society that feeds its children, from the youngest ages, a racist and demagogic diet of anti-Semitic screed. The result is a generation of automatons, some of whom can be turned into weapons.

The terrorist organizers themselves are by no means willing to die for their cause. Rather, when threatened by retaliation as is the Hamas leadership in Gaza, they hide their activities in the midst of schools and hospitals to cowardly avoid the threat of punishment for their activities. None of them has ever voluntarily carried out a mission from which they did not expect to return alive.

To call any of these murderers holy people with an absolute commitment to G-d, is to show an appalling lack of understanding of the facts. To call it romantic, selfless, and extraordinary defies comprehension. To liken them to Christian saints, who were indeed willing to die, but never murder, for their cause, is insulting and contemptuous. No amount of added spin, such as calling it wrong and monstrous while trying to explain the underlying motives, can condone the misguided comparisons in the body of the piece.

Crispin Sartwell loses credibility by holding such opinions. This column is astonishing in its ignorance.