 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| The Atlantic Affairs Security. Ideologies. Multiculturalism. |
| I N S I G H T -------- Media's Iran JA Taylor 'Clear Wine' Kate Huber Choosing Death AHS Smyth Fatal Britain Civitas Report Russians at Edge Liliana N. P. Chavez's Mutiny Chloe Saimpert Clout of Islam Sadanand Dhume Host Country Sabina Ahmed Google Vs. US Amy Peikoff |
The transformation of 'Jihad Jack' & John Walker Lindh
By Christian Beenfeldt
Posted: April 13, 2006
Like the 2002 case of "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh, the
current case of Australian "Jihad Jack" Thomas--who was charged with
being a terrorist "sleeper" agent, convicted of having received money
from al-Qaeda and sentenced to five years imprisonment--raises the
same question that baffled the world during the Lindh trial: How can a
freewheeling Westerner morph into a fanatical Islamist?
Like Lindh, Thomas started out at what appears to be the opposite end
of the spectrum from a hard-line religionist--he was a beer-loving punk
rocker--and then, like Lindh, he deliberately sought out radical Islam,
travelling to a far-away terrorist training camp where he embraced
religious dogmatism and obtained instruction in suicide bomb tactics.
How is this transformation possible? The freewheeling, "anything
goes" type and the religious dogmatist are of course both familiar in
today's culture--and they are generally considered to be diametrically
opposed. But are they really?
Consider the typical "progressive" leftist, with his non-judgmental
relativism. He is the embodiment of subjectivism: he holds that there
are no absolute principles, that truth is "in the eye of the beholder," and
that "what's right for you might not be right for me." He is the exponent
of the belief that nobody can have objective knowledge or objective
grounds for evaluating another person's beliefs or actions. On the
premise that moral values are merely subjective preferences, he feels
that there is no factual basis for moral judgment.
Thomas betrayed a residue of this sentiment when he stated that "one
man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." And Lindh's Marin
County parents certainly typified this philosophy with their
non-judgmental attitude towards his early affinity for nasty rap music
and his later conversion to radical Islam.
The religious dogmatist, on the other hand, dismisses the "truth is
relative" chorus of the subjectivists and has no qualms about making
moral judgments. His philosophy, he says, espouses the
unquestionable truth and advocates absolute standards of right and
wrong. It is only on the surface, however, that the dogmatist is opposed
to the subjectivist; at root, the two share a fundamental similarity. In
denying that there are any objective standards by which to choose how
to think or act, the subjectivist makes clear that his choices are ruled by
blind feelings. This is precisely also the basic policy of the religious
dogmatist.
There are an infinite number of opposing religious sects. How does
the religionist decide which faith to embrace, which revelations to
follow and which authority to obey? Does he scientifically gather the
evidence, carefully weigh it, and then adopt the conclusion to which
reason and logic point? Obviously not. He feels it. He feels that
Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, astrology or whatever, is the
right faith for him.
As Thomas himself describes his conversion to Islam, after agreeing
to fast for the month of Ramadan: "I just felt a link from all the prophets
of Adam and Noah and Moses and Abraham and all the prophets
coming from one God and Confucius and Buddha and all the people
being messengers and all my whole world came together." He
continued to follow his feelings to radical Islam, to terrorist training, and
to the adoption of "Jihad" as his first name.
So while the religionist may claim to uphold absolute truths, his beliefs
are as arbitrary and baseless as those of the subjectivist. Thus, the
paradoxical conversions of Jack Thomas and Walker Lindh--from
subjectivist to religious dogmatist--aren't so paradoxical after all; in
both cases, the switch was merely from one form of emotionalism to
another.
What neither the subjectivist nor the dogmatist can fathom is the need
for an objective approach--a method of seeking truth, acquiring
knowledge, and defining moral standards, not by indulgence in
emotions, but by a process of reasoning based on factual evidence
alone. In every issue and area of its life, a mind on this premise is
moved not by arbitrary whims, but by logical arguments that are
grounded in directly perceivable facts.
What is needed, then, to avoid raising the "Jihad Jacks" and "American
Talibans" of the future, is for our culture to reject emotionalism in all of
its varieties -- whether in the form of anything-goes subjectivism or of
emotion-driven faith in mystical dogmas -- in favor of the rational
alternative: objectivity.
### ### ###
Christian Beenfeldt, MA in Philosophy, is a guest writer for the Ayn Rand
Institute, Irvine, Calif.
By Christian Beenfeldt
Posted: April 13, 2006
Like the 2002 case of "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh, the
current case of Australian "Jihad Jack" Thomas--who was charged with
being a terrorist "sleeper" agent, convicted of having received money
from al-Qaeda and sentenced to five years imprisonment--raises the
same question that baffled the world during the Lindh trial: How can a
freewheeling Westerner morph into a fanatical Islamist?
Like Lindh, Thomas started out at what appears to be the opposite end
of the spectrum from a hard-line religionist--he was a beer-loving punk
rocker--and then, like Lindh, he deliberately sought out radical Islam,
travelling to a far-away terrorist training camp where he embraced
religious dogmatism and obtained instruction in suicide bomb tactics.
How is this transformation possible? The freewheeling, "anything
goes" type and the religious dogmatist are of course both familiar in
today's culture--and they are generally considered to be diametrically
opposed. But are they really?
Consider the typical "progressive" leftist, with his non-judgmental
relativism. He is the embodiment of subjectivism: he holds that there
are no absolute principles, that truth is "in the eye of the beholder," and
that "what's right for you might not be right for me." He is the exponent
of the belief that nobody can have objective knowledge or objective
grounds for evaluating another person's beliefs or actions. On the
premise that moral values are merely subjective preferences, he feels
that there is no factual basis for moral judgment.
Thomas betrayed a residue of this sentiment when he stated that "one
man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." And Lindh's Marin
County parents certainly typified this philosophy with their
non-judgmental attitude towards his early affinity for nasty rap music
and his later conversion to radical Islam.
The religious dogmatist, on the other hand, dismisses the "truth is
relative" chorus of the subjectivists and has no qualms about making
moral judgments. His philosophy, he says, espouses the
unquestionable truth and advocates absolute standards of right and
wrong. It is only on the surface, however, that the dogmatist is opposed
to the subjectivist; at root, the two share a fundamental similarity. In
denying that there are any objective standards by which to choose how
to think or act, the subjectivist makes clear that his choices are ruled by
blind feelings. This is precisely also the basic policy of the religious
dogmatist.
There are an infinite number of opposing religious sects. How does
the religionist decide which faith to embrace, which revelations to
follow and which authority to obey? Does he scientifically gather the
evidence, carefully weigh it, and then adopt the conclusion to which
reason and logic point? Obviously not. He feels it. He feels that
Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, astrology or whatever, is the
right faith for him.
As Thomas himself describes his conversion to Islam, after agreeing
to fast for the month of Ramadan: "I just felt a link from all the prophets
of Adam and Noah and Moses and Abraham and all the prophets
coming from one God and Confucius and Buddha and all the people
being messengers and all my whole world came together." He
continued to follow his feelings to radical Islam, to terrorist training, and
to the adoption of "Jihad" as his first name.
So while the religionist may claim to uphold absolute truths, his beliefs
are as arbitrary and baseless as those of the subjectivist. Thus, the
paradoxical conversions of Jack Thomas and Walker Lindh--from
subjectivist to religious dogmatist--aren't so paradoxical after all; in
both cases, the switch was merely from one form of emotionalism to
another.
What neither the subjectivist nor the dogmatist can fathom is the need
for an objective approach--a method of seeking truth, acquiring
knowledge, and defining moral standards, not by indulgence in
emotions, but by a process of reasoning based on factual evidence
alone. In every issue and area of its life, a mind on this premise is
moved not by arbitrary whims, but by logical arguments that are
grounded in directly perceivable facts.
What is needed, then, to avoid raising the "Jihad Jacks" and "American
Talibans" of the future, is for our culture to reject emotionalism in all of
its varieties -- whether in the form of anything-goes subjectivism or of
emotion-driven faith in mystical dogmas -- in favor of the rational
alternative: objectivity.
### ### ###
Christian Beenfeldt, MA in Philosophy, is a guest writer for the Ayn Rand
Institute, Irvine, Calif.
It used to be called SEDITION; read the best BLOGS |
| (c) 2006 New Criterion Foundation, London |