[Julie Steiner]

So horrible.

It's hard for me not to draw comparisons between Easter Mass at the targeted churches in Sri Lanka and Easter Mass at my own parish church, in which I was sitting when I first learned of the attacks, when the priest included the victims in the Prayers of the Faithful. I immediately imagined it happening where I was. So many people. So many kids.

And of course there are obvious comparisons with last month's mosque attacks in New Zealand during Friday prayers, too.

It's also hard to avoid comparisons of a different sort with last week's accidental fire at Notre Dame in Paris, which interrupted a sparsely-attended Monday evening Mass, from which everyone was able to evacuate safely. Although one firefighter was badly injured while fighting the blaze, no one died. Obviously, it's a lot harder to rebuild people than it is to rebuild buildings--even very special buildings.

The Sri Lankan death toll from suicide bombings in three cities is 290 people so far, including three policemen who were trying to defuse undetonated explosives. There are also an estimated 500 injured. In addition to three Catholic churches packed for Easter Mass, the targeted buildings included several hotels with an international clientele.

The terrorists wanted visibility, so I hesitate to give them more of that. But at the same time I want to recognize the magnitude of human tragedy. And in addition to the direct victims and their loved ones, many more in Sri Lanka are dependent on the tourist industry for their livelihood, which will be severely impacted by this.

[Martin Elster]

I first read about this incident last night in a poem at The Society of Classical Poets in this poem:

‘The Terrorist Attacks in Sri Lanka, Easter, 2019’ by Bruce Dale Wise

https://classicalpoets.org/2019/04/2...uce-dale-wise/

The poem led me to investigate the news, and I could scarcely believe what I was reading. And you are right, Julie, that visibility is precisely what terrorists want.

[Julie Steiner]

I wish the poet had not named terrorists, even to curse them. Again...that's exactly what they want. Notoriety. Significance. To them, all publicity is good publicity.

[Edited to say: I'm mostly worried about the mentally and emotionally unstable people who see the attention given to mass murderers and then want it for themselves. Such as the Columbine-obsessed young woman who apparently planned a similar attack on that attack's 20th anniversary last week.]

Three days ago, my local newspaper, the San Diego Union-Tribune, published this editorial, in which they announced a new policy of damnatio memoriae for alleged shooters, at least on the editorial page.

Our board will no longer publish these perpetrators’ names in our editorials except in rare circumstances when we deem the news value too great to avoid doing it once.

Bravo.

[Edited to say: Although there have been many calls for such media policies in the past, the latest Columbine copycat is what finally prompted them to follow the lead of New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who has refused to utter the name of the alleged shooter in the Christchurch mosque massacre.]

[Michael F]

It insults animals to call the attacks brutish.

A (little) bit tangential, but a good column here from Kara Swisher, who writes of intelligently of technology, its promise and risks. Sri Lanka features prominently. But so do we.

[John Isbell]

Damnatio memoriae is exactly right. I would like to see that policy you mention adopted by media in general, Julie. I still regret knowing the name of John Lennon's killer, for instance, whose only claim on posterity is his leechlike attachment to the fame of the person whose life he brutally ended. Total oblivion would be more apt.

Cheers,
John

[Mark McDonnell]

Horrible indeed. The death toll is now at 359. As to 'what the terrorists want', Isis spelled it out fairly unequivocally in their glossy online propaganda magazine Dabiq and I see no reason not to take them at their word. It is, more than anything else, motivated by religious fundamentalism.

http://www.oswego.edu/~delancey/314_...yWeHateYou.pdf

[Julie Steiner]

I would caution you to be wary of taking them at their word, Mark.

Leaders who delight in encouraging their own radical followers to sacrifice themselves along with innocents certainly don't hesitate to issue statements like this, which encourage Westerners who "take them at their word" that No True Scotsman...er, I mean Muslim...doesn't do X, Y, and Z. In this case, hate Westerners and seek to destroy non-Muslims.

They are actually hoping that their statement will provoke Westerners to seek retribution on innocent Muslims who mean no one any harm. Then the leaders of their own movement can say "I told you so" to moderate Muslims, and point to these anti-Muslim retaliatory acts and policies as evidence that no Muslim is safe, and that their own offensive war is actually defensive.

Not to defend religious fundamentalism, which is repugnant in every faith tradition (including my own), but I think religious fundamentalism isn't the cause. It's just a ready-made tool, waiting for the right sociopath to come along and wield it. Frankly, I don't think most of these demagogues believe in whatever god or gods are nominally associated with whatever brand of religious fundamentalism they're purveying. Would-be authoritarians of every stripe have been exploiting religious and ethnic divisions in the same way for millennia, because doing so is so effective at bringing them into political power, and keeping them there. They don't give a rat's ass about converting anyone, or saving anyone's soul, or bringing them into the bliss of Islam or the joy of Christ or whatever.

[John Isbell]

Thus, for instance, fairly credible reports that ISIS helped finance their behavior with drug money.

John

[Mark McDonnell]

I don't know, Julie. Of course, if taking Isis' statement about their motivations at face value has the consequence of making Westerners seek retaliation on ordinary, peaceful Muslims then that is indeed horrible, and the perpetrators of those hate crimes should be dealt with severely. And of course Isis' claim to speak for all 'real Muslims' is ludicrous and abhorrent, but I don't think it lessens the statement's sincerity. And I don't think the convoluted 'if we say this, then they will do that, and then we can justify the other' motivation you ascribe to them is likely. No doubt they are happy with causing division in the West between Muslims and non-Muslims, but I don't think that is this statement's primary goal. I think you underestimate the power of strong religious belief and I'm not sure why. Don't you think anyone is motivated by their beliefs? Are Christians who protest abortion clinics or advocate 'gay conversion therapy' not motivated by their religious beliefs? Are white supremacists not actually racist, but simply using it as an excuse, a means to gain power? Was Bin Laden not a religious man? Or the head of Isis, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi? Belief is a powerful motivator and can be used for positive or destructive purposes. Did you read the pdf? It reads to me like the writings of someone genuinely, frighteningly devout. And how is murdering 300 plus people in Sri Lanka (or Paris or Brussels) helping to regain/consolidate Isis' local political power?

I think the reluctance to acknowledge the inherently religious motivations of Isis comes from a completely understandable urge to disassociate them from ordinary Muslims and also, more fundamentally, because of our hard-to-shake instinct to see 'deeply religious' as synonymous with 'good'.

You say 'Not to defend religious fundamentalism, which is repugnant in every faith tradition' which suggests you acknowledge that religious fundamentalism exists, but then you go on to suggest that most religious fundamentalists don't actually believe in their god. This strikes me as bizarrely flying in the face of the obvious: that religious fundamentalists believe in their god more passionately and literally than anyone else and some are willing to kill and die for it. And given some of the content of the Old Testament and the Koran, while it may be 'repugnant' it is hardly surprising.

[Julie Steiner]

But I didn't say most religious fundamentalists don't believe in the god or gods they worship.

I said that I think most demagogues who leverage religious fundamentalism to convince believers to commit atrocities probably don't believe in the god or gods they claim to serve.

I don't deny that there's plenty of authentically disturbing stuff for sincere believers to find in both the Koran and in the Old Testament--and in the New Testament, for that matter. But there are plenty of garden-variety fundamentalists who read that stuff and don't spontaneously start murdering homosexuals and blasphemers et al..

Usually it takes some charismatic figure to "interpret" such passages for them and convince them that it is God's will that they play a very special role in some larger design.