Dying is a Sin…

I don’t think most people have heard of Conservapedia.com, the “Trustworthy Encyclopedia.” Whether or not you agree with their point of view, I find myself particularly attracted to the rhetoric presented in one entry: Homicide Bombers.

A Homicide Bomber is a person who straps explosives to his body and detonates them in a crowded place, combining the heinous sins of suicide and mass murder. Homicide bombers are terrorists who kill innocent people by means of explosives secretly carried on their persons, knowing that they will be killed in the attack. The liberal media improperly refers to these people as “suicide bombers” although their intent is to murder others, not to commit suicide.

says the entry. This is actually an interesting turn of phrase. Why do we call suicide bombers, “suicide bombers”? Understandably it is a good way to differentiate between someone who sets off a bomb from afar and the one who is wearing his. If we look at the words, “homicide,” “suicide,” “patricide,” “genocide,” the latinate beginnings indicate the primary sin. Therefore, a “homicide” bomber’s primary sin is killing others and honestly, I think most people who do use the term “suicide bomber,” would agree.

So why do we use “suicide bomber?” “Suicide bomber” implies the extra element that “homicide bomber,” doesn’t, that oomph that portrays the sinister (or dedicated) edge. I read a very interesting book on suicide bombers two summers ago called, “Dying to Win,” by Robert A. Pape. Pape succeeds in completely breaking down the stereotypes of suicide bombers, arguing that they are first, nationalistic, and second, religiously fueled. While we in the West see a fundamentalist “brain-washed” into blowing himself up because he has no where else to go, Pape succeeds in showing that bombers are instead fueled by the community at large and see themselves as committing an “altruistic” act, one that will benefit their friends, family, and nation. Changing the way we think about “suicide bombers” may give us clues to avoid ‘producing’ the necessary environment in which they thrive…

The Conservapedia entry does lose me near the end:

The action of homicide bombers was best summed up by John Ashcroft in a 2002 interview with the LA Times: “Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for Him. Christianity is a faith in which God sends His son to die for you.”

Another entry for the “Invoking God Inappropriately Tracker.”

Andy Pettite’s Judgement Day…

While Roger Clemens surged into Congress to defend himself against the allegations leveled at him concerning steroidal abuse, Pettite took a different route. Initially coming off as humble and sheepishly guilty, comparable to a kid who finally comes forward to tell Mom and Dad that he broke the cookie jar, Pettite will escape any stigmas that Clemens will now have to absorb. However, Pettite’s words during his apology, kind of threw me a curve ball.

“I know in my heart why I did things. I know that God knows that. I know that I’m going to have to stand before him one day. The truth hurts sometimes and you don’t want to share it. The truth will set you free. I’m going to be able to sleep a lot better.”

Can we pause for one second? Since when was God pissed at Andy? “And Thou shalt not use HGH, quoth the Lord” (Leviticus 14:2). Pettite is referring more than anything to his cheating, and I am glad he came forward. However, I am always made uncomfortable when people invoke God for forgiveness, as if God was at the moment was sitting in His easy chair (divine throne), a heartbroken Yankees fan. Like “alcoholism”, “God” is a good word to utter if you want forgiveness. So while Clemens chugs through the US government’s resources (hoping that “shock and awe” will force people to forgive him), Andy Pettite is the opposite: so humble that people will forgive him of his primary sin: making us question the game we love.