Why They Resort to Terror
By “Awake!” correspondent in West Germany
A FAMILIAR face peered down from hundreds of election billboards scattered throughout the city. Peter Lorenz was a candidate for mayor of Berlin, and an issue was security. “More Energetic Action to Ensure Security,” urged the billboards. “Berliners are living in danger . . . crime is on the rise,” explained handbills distributed by Lorenz’ party.
But then, shortly before election day, that same familiar face could be seen staring blankly from thousands of newspapers throughout the city—this time tired, drugged-looking, robbed of glasses. “Peter Lorenz—Prisoner of the June 2 Movement,” boasted the sign placed in front of him—now a victim of the very terror that he was campaigning against! Release came only after the German government gave in to all his captors’ demands.
Political terrorism and violence have recently burst forth across the face of the earth, like a deadly plague. In fact, during the very week that Lorenz was held hostage, German newspapers were also reporting other widespread acts of political violence:
Argentina: “Extremists have shot kidnapped American consul John Patrick Egan.”
Southern France: “Extensive property damage was caused Sunday night in a series of six bomb attacks.”
Kenya: “The once peaceful capital of Nairobi dwells in the shadow of terror. A bomb attack upon an overland bus resulted in 27 dead and 36 injured.”
Rome: “In a [blood-spilling] street battle . . . between young extremists of the right and left, a demonstrator was critically wounded.”
Northern Ireland: “Despite the truce two persons were killed last night in Belfast and two others wounded.”
Israel: “A terrorist attack on a hotel in Tel Aviv ended early Thursday in a blood bath . . . fourteen deaths.”
All of this in just a week’s time! No wonder people were asking, “Where will it all end?” and, “Can nothing be done?” However, German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt warned the Bonn Parliament: “The constitutional state can offer no guarantee of protection against terrorism and anarchistic violence . . . Even military and police dictatorships are unable to offer absolute protection.” In search of solutions, Berlin’s daily Tagesspiegel asked:
“What has happened to world organizations like the UN or to the international solidarity of the countries involved in not demanding that political murderers, kidnapers and skyjackers be extradited or at least prosecuted? This evil cannot be eradicated as long as it is not possible to get to the root of the trouble.”
True, but what is the root of the trouble? Will merely prosecuting terrorists reach and correct it? A took at what is behind their acts of violence reveals that the roots run far deeper.
The Road to Violence
Idealistic young people do not have to be told that something is wrong with the society around them. The need for change seems evident. But often their voices alone have had little effect upon deeply entrenched systems. The wave of protests that began in the Western industrial nations in the 1950’s, for example, was peaceful at first. Many people can still remember the “Ban the Bomb” slogan used by marchers from Aldermaston in England. But the bomb was not banned. Indeed, nuclear stockpiles are now growing faster than ever before.
Similar frustrations in connection with the Vietnam war, civil rights and other issues became a breeding ground for more active forms of protest. Increasingly, the seeming success of revolutionary violence in countries such as China and Cuba strengthened many protesters in their belief that change could come only through violent overthrow of those in power.
“Destroy what is destroying you” became the revolutionary slogan of protesting Berlin students during the 1960’s. Since the established state had failed to solve mankind’s problems, they reasoned, it would have to be done away with and replaced—by violent means if necessary. The group that kidnapped mayoral candidate Lorenz put it this way: “Words and demands accomplish nothing in changing what is wrong with this country . . . Only violence and weapons can do away with fascism.”
Well-known German journalist Fritz Rene Allemann explains their strategy thus: “Terror—at times employed in the most brutal and crudest way, at times highly refined and shrewdly executed—is to provoke the upper classes and shake the lower classes out of their lethargy and fatalistic resignation by demonstrating to them that governments and rulers are no longer beyond reach.”
So it is that the methods of the religious conflict in Northern Ireland and of minority “liberation movements” in other countries have spread to the prosperous countries of the West. “Urban guerrillas” move about in modern jungle-like cities whose huge apartment houses and impersonal streets offer refuge and cover. Lightninglike attacks, including bank robberies, bombings, “executions” of unpopular politicians and kidnapping of prominent personalities to force the release of imprisoned comrades have become the order of the day.
Meantime, another, often overlooked, factor has contributed much to this climate for violence. What is that?
Clerical Involvement
A religious person might, in all honesty, ask why religion has not been more effective in moderating political violence. Is not Christianity opposed to violence and the use of force? Does it not, rather, advocate love of one’s neighbor?
Heinrich Albertz, a former mayor of Berlin and an ordained minister of the Evangelical (Lutheran) Church and synod member, gives us an insight as to the answer. During a television interview in late 1974, he admitted: “We ourselves are all guilty that things have so developed, for they are, after all, our sons and daughters.” Punctuating his words is the fact that one of the four alleged ringleaders of Germany’s notorious Baader-Meinhof terrorist organization, charged with five counts of murder and numerous counts of attempted murder, bank robbery, arson, bombing, forgery and grand larceny, is herself the daughter of an ordained Protestant minister!
True, the majority of Catholic and Protestant clergymen would not openly say that they advocate violence and terror. But these clergymen’s statements are less a measure of their contribution to terrorism than are their actions. They are much like the parent who tells his child not to smoke, but fails to help him to understand thoroughly why, while at the same time he himself continues to smoke—thus encouraging a wrong course. Hence, clergymen may condemn what terrorists are doing, but they themselves have cultivated the soil in which the seeds of terror and violence have taken root and flourished. How so?
Well, consider the methods of religious leaders during the hundreds of years in the Middle Ages when they were strong enough to impose their will upon the state. Do not their blood-spilling crusades, terrifying inquisitions, burning of “heretics,” witch-hunts, “conversions” by the sword, and other violent tactics fill the pages of history with proof that they had no aversion to terror and violence when it was to their advantage? Has time changed this underlying acceptance of violence?
The history of two world wars in the heart of Christendom answers No! The record shows that political leaders on both sides of both conflicts could count on the most fervent backing from the churches when sending their young men out to commit violence. Said British Brigadier General Frank P. Crozier: “The Christian Churches are the finest blood-lust creators which we have, and of them we made free use.” The ongoing religious terror in Northern Ireland continues to demonstrate this trend to violence among Christendom’s people, no matter how many words of peace issue from the mouths of clergymen.
Thus it has been only a short step for some clergymen from supporting the “God and country” violence of war to advocating violence in support of political causes that certain people believe are “just.” Advocating this, Presbyterian University pastor Henry W. Malcolm wrote during the period of radical student revolt against the Vietnam war:
“Those who complain that the clergy ought not to become involved in public issues such as politics, economics, poverty, war and peace do not really understand the history of the ministry. . . . it is they who are the ones who give visible evidence of the most basic teachings of their faith. And this fact does not go unheeded by the student radicals throughout the nation.”
Then, showing the extent to which clergymen may become involved in political movements beyond mere words, Malcolm says:
“If it also means that certain action must be taken to change the managed society into a freer society, this too must be tried. All in all, this is why the campus pastor finds himself involved with student radicals.”
Reports now abound of clergymen becoming involved in “liberation” movements all over the globe. Many not only verbally advocate the overthrow of what they label as “oppressive” systems, but also actually participate in the violence themselves. Thus they lend an air of moral respectability to violence, as though it were the will of God. Typical are the words of Colombian Catholic priest Camillo Torres, who died some time ago in a hail of soldiers’ bullets:
“Revolution means to install a government which feeds the hungry, clothes the naked and instructs the ignorant, in short, one which exercises love . . . For this reason revolution is not only a possibility for Christians, but in fact a duty if it is the only effective means of achieving this love for all.”
Can you blame today’s youth for being led to believe that the way to achieve a just society is through their own efforts—that they are acting in harmony with the will of God, who does not or cannot act himself? William F. Starr, a Protestant counselor at Columbia University, noted that it was the view of the late German Protestant theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer that “the world itself, man himself as he lives in the world, fills needs and solves problems, not God.” To this, Starr adds: “As Bonhoeffer’s hearers we echo his plea that God must no longer be asked to do what man can do for himself and for one another.”
Hence, if man is on his own, then “destroy what is destroying you!” appears to many to be a legitimate solution to their frustration with the failures of human governments. But is it?
The Real Solution
It would be naive to believe that terrorists are wrong in all of their conclusions. Rather than ignoring reality, they recognize the failure of present systems to deal with political, economic, racial and environmental problems. But is their solution—the violent replacement of present systems with another of their own choosing—the right one? Or would it be merely trading one form of oppression by imperfect humans for another?
On the other hand, what do those who advocate working “within the system” have to show for their efforts? As much as they talk and work, is the world’s state of affairs even headed in the right direction? The existence of more and more impoverished, unemployed, illiterate, hungry and homeless people—and now, a greater number of refugees—all answer emphatically No!
Have not imperfect humans thoroughly demonstrated that they cannot produce the global changes necessary to bring peace and happiness to all of mankind? But what if the change were to come from outside the realm of humans, from a source that has power to overthrow all the feuding, selfish, nationalistic rulers of today and replace them with a universal government that will truly serve the interests of mankind as a whole? Bible prophecy answers that this is just what the Creator of the human family purposed to do:
“In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom [government] that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite.”—Dan. 2:44.
The Bible also shows that a completely new order will then prevail, based on the peace, equality and brotherly love so much desired by many who want to change the present system.—See 2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:1-5.
Religious clergymen have failed to make this purpose of God clear to the youth of today. Therefore they must bear a heavy load of responsibility for misleading radicals into the ways of terror and violence. They could have done much to prevent the rise of terrorism if only they had fulfilled their mission to instruct young people in the grand purposes of God, rather than directing them toward man-made solutions. Those who do not take God’s purposes into account can only reap what the ancient Israelite people did when they also did not consider God:
“There was a hoping for peace, but no good came; and for a time of healing, and, look! terror!”—Jer. 14:19.
Is this not just what is happening today? Therefore, why not wisely abandon the limited solutions devised by imperfect humans in favor of the world-embracing solution that God will bring in through his kingdom? Only then will the longed-for time of peace, justice and righteousness that is the sincere dream even of many terrorists become a reality.