By Victor Greto
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, the late Barry Goldwater once said.
Of course it is.
In fact, extremism in the defense – or offense, to which it often amounts – of anything is not only a personal vice, but dangerous to people who happen not to agree with whatever you’re getting extreme about.
Terrorism is a shocking example of extremism in the defense of a mesh of theology and politics that seems to run counter to mainstream theology and politics.
But, like all extremes, it is thoroughly based on mainstream ideas.
In the case of religious fundamentalism, it’s based upon what you may consider to be a harmless theology intrinsic to the three great monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam: that God has an active role in history and, sooner or later, punishes evil and rewards good.
If you believe in an omniscient God who takes an interest in our everyday affairs, it makes sense.
But it is the power of that belief, unchained from any ethic of moderation and respect for life, that has legitimized terrorism in the eyes of its adherents – or makes the action seem “justified” in one way or another by others.
In the case of the latter, take what Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have said about the recent World Trade Center terrorist attacks.
“We have insulted God at the highest level of our government,” Robertson said. “Then we say, ‘Why does this happen?’ It is happening because God Almighty is lifting his protection from us. We lie naked before these terrorists.”
Falwell pursued the idea even further by naming names.
“In fact,” he said, “God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve. The pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way – all of them who have tried to secularize America – I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen.’ ”
It may seem easy for some of us to shrug off these evangelists’ conclusions, but all these men are doing is following out logically the core beliefs held by millions of other people: that any meaning derived from events in history must be measured on the scales of God’s justice, divvied out in doses of reward and punishment.
If you don’t want to question the truth of the core belief itself – and, as importantly, if your belief is not tempered by moderation or respect for life – Falwell and Robertson make some sense.
As some clerics said in responding to Falwell’s and Robertson’s remarks: though they could not sanction what they said, they agreed with the fundamentals of their theology.
In a case like this, Job’s answer may be really your only refuge: by definition, we can’t know God’s plan, so we might as well just shut up.
But that’s just too much to ask of many of us.
Concerning our possible reaction to the World Trade Center terrorism, what Benjamin Franklin once wrote seems pertinent.
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety,” he said.
Well, who knows what any of us deserves? But there is a kernel of truth in what Ben says. If we don’t tip ourselves in either direction – especially in the direction of compromising our civil liberties – we will avoid becoming the extremists who started all of this.