Recently, a US soldier in Afghanistan left his base at about 3 AM.  He walked about half a mile to a nearby village, entered three different homes, and shot dead at least 16 Afghani civilians (at least twelve of whom were women and children).  In the first home, where eleven of the victims were located, he gathered the bodies to burn them.  He then returned to base and turned himself in to authorities.  At the current time, his motives are unclear.  Much information about the killings and the killer has not yet been released.  What is known is that many of the victims were asleep at the time of the killings.

The US Government has issued a necessary but predictable statement of remorse, assuring that an investigation will soon be undertaken, and appropriate legal actions will be pursued (US soldiers in Afghanistan fall under US legal jurisdiction).  The question remains, exactly what crime was committed here?  Was this act part of the “fog of war” and thus representative of collateral damage?  Perhaps the shooter is not guilty by reason of insanity, due to PTSD and a possible history of previous brain trauma?  The killing may represent first degree murder (based on the premeditation inherent in walking a mile to the nearest town).  But, intriguingly, the news media has yet to use the word “terrorism”.

The first two, more lenient, possibilities also seem the least likely to be successful.  The shooter clearly had not been engaged actively by an enemy at the time of the shooting, and collateral damage can only be claimed if he had targeted a real or perceived enemy.  The insanity defense is very likely to be used and is already being used in the media, where all sorts of excuses (ranging from stress to alcohol to a bad marriage) are being floated for his actions.  It is interesting that these same excuses would be considered absolutely inadequate if the killings had occurred against an American town on American soil.  However, this strategy is unlikely to succeed legally and politically, as the shooter clearly knew what he did was wrong (he immediately turned himself over to authorities), and because the government will want to show swift and severe judgment in order to avoid unrest and backlash.

The question then becomes, is this  US soldier a terrorist?  Here is a person who has targeted innocent civilians and killed them in cold blood.  If his motivations were motivated by pure psychopathy then he is nothing more than a deranged cold blooded mass-murderer.   If, however, his motivations included any element of religious or political ideology, then his actions must be considered an act of terrorism.

When Major Nidal Hasan (also a member of the US Military) opened fire at Fort Hood, he was immediately branded a terrorist.  He had, after all, murdered innocents (sort of–members of the military industrial complex are considered reasonable targets by the Geneva Convention) and was motivated by political ideology.  But, when Joseph Stack flew his plane into the IRS building (sound familiar?), clearly motivated by a political ideology, he was branded a deranged anti-government crusader and some Americans even considered him a hero.  In fact, in an official statement “government officials were quick to rule out any involvement of terrorism in the incident.”

Let us hope that we have not devolved so much as a society as to believe that the definition of terrorism is inherently related to one’s own religion, or the nationality of the victims.  While this seems clearly to be the case with the news media,  the FBI official definition of terrorism includes no such reference:

“the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)

While it is a major tenet of US law that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, it is a painful fact that if in fact our soldier was motivated by any religious or political objective then he has committed an act of terrorism.  If we are to maintain consistency with our rule of law, not to mention any semblance of credibility in the global community, then we must have the strength to call a spade a spade.

RELATED: The Daily Beast editorial board had a very interesting internal discussion on what they should call terrorism, related to the Joseph Stack incident.  They also had the courage to post it online in its entirety.  It is worth a read.

A firestorm of debate has opened recently about the Obama administration’s handling of an interesting conundrum regarding birth control.  The debate purportedly posits the rights of free practice of religion with the rights of women to make choices regarding their health.  An interesting by-product of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, Obamacare) is a provision which would have forced employers to provide (purchase) health insurance for their employees which covered the costs of contraception, including “emergency contraception” (felt by many to be abortion-inducing pills).  Many faith-based employers took umbrage at their being forced to directly subsidize actions which they feel are morally reprehensible; however many of their own employees demand the right to make those choices for themselves rather than have them made by their employer.  While the shrill tones of the debate have been amplified by the current election year politics, the crux of the debate is made all the more interesting by the issues and cogent arguments it raises.

Many on the religious right, particularly in the Catholic church, see this issue as one of religious freedom.  Their religion takes a strict line on contraception, especially “emergency contraception”; though this strict stance is seldom shared by their adherents.  As such, they consider enabling such action through direct subsidy or purchase to be as morally unacceptable as engaging in the practice itself.  This is a point that I, for one, can understand.  Islam has similar rules regarding paying for, storing, gifting, or otherwise enabling the use of alcohol; and I would be just as dismayed if the federal government mandated that I had to participate in such tasks.  Clearly, the people in these institutions have a right to abide by their religion and stay true to their faith.

There is, however, another side to this story.  Each employee of each of these institutions (and every person in general) has a right to make personal decisions about their own healthcare, regardless of their faith or the faith of their employer.  This right is as close to sacrosanct in American culture as can be.   Decisions regarding contraception, even emergency contraception (by virtue of its status as a legal and accepted form of medical practice), should be left to an individual alone and availability of these culturally accepted healthcare options should not be determined by a persons employer, this is a central provision of PPACA (providing guidelines for acceptable basic health coverage).  Clearly, these individuals have a right to personal liberty in their healthcare choices.

The challenge of America is to reconcile these rights and freedoms which are seemingly in direct opposition to one another.  This has been the root of America’s greatness as well.  However, it will be impossible to do so without compromise.  Lately, compromise has unfortunately been related in political spheres to weakness, but truly the ability to compromise to find solutions for a such a vastly diverse nation is essential, and is a source of strength.  The unwillingness to compromise leads to an unwillingness to tolerate diversity, and this is a trend which leads to various forms of xenophobia which are evident in today’s political culture.

The PPACA was put into place partially to assure that employers were providing a certain degree of basic health insurance for their employees (the merits and drawbacks of the act can be debated ad nauseum, but we will currently consider it as it stands).  This basic insurance must include contraceptive care, as oral contraceptives have multiple potential uses besides the prevention of pregnancy (use in dysmenorrhea, endometriosis, and even as chemical castration for sex offenders).  So, if we take the PPACA at face value, how shall we endeavor to provide such care for employees of Catholic institutions, regardless of their religious affiliation?  A reasonable compromise must be obtained.

In order to prevent these institutions from disturbing their moral sensitivities, a compromise solution was arrived at, whereupon such care would be covered free of charge by the insurance companies (thus nominally not being subsidized or enabled by said employers) for employees of these institutions.   Obviously, the costs need to be borne somewhere; the one thing all Americans can agree on is that health insurers are not in the business of charity.  This cost would then be spread over the pool of employers, increasing the incremental cost of each customer of that insurance company slightly but equally.  Yes, this small increase spread over all customers can be considered indirectly subsidizing (to a much lesser extent) such care.  No, it is not perfect.  However it is an imminently reasonable attempt to compromise, and to find comfortable ground for both employees/patients and those financing their insurance premiums.

Those shrieking dismay at this latest attempt at compromise by the Obama administration are motivated at least as much by election year politics as by true concern for religious freedom.  After all, if freedom was truly their main concern, they would be concerned about freedom of those on both sides of the equation.  It is time to remove this issue from the grotesque distortions of the kaleidoscope of election year politics and view it as calm, rational adults.  Doing so would soon reveal that while Obama’s compromise is not perfect for all parties, no compromise ever is–by definition.  His attempts, however, are laudable and imminently reasonable.

“We have civil laws, but our civil laws have to comport with a higher law– God’s law.  As long as there is discordance between the two, there will be agitation. [And] Not just any god, but the God of [our prophets]“

A quick multiple choice for the reader.  The words above were spoken by:

A) Osama bin Laden

B) Aiman al-Zawahiri

C) Mullah Omar

D) Rick Santorum

For those of you who answered Rick Santorum, you are correct.  And these are not just words from many years ago spoken by a young, brash idealist who didn’t know he’d someday be running for president, these words were spoken by him on Thanksgiving Day 2011, in the heat of a presidential campaign.  (for the sake of accuracy, the words “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” were what he said instead of “our prophet”, I left that part out for suspense)

Mr. Santorum has mounted a suprisingly successful bid for the presidency of our nation.  However, his underlying themes are contradictory.  Like most insurgent bids, his message preys on our basest instincts instead of the “better angels of our nature.”

Mr. Santorum is evidently blind to the hypocrisy that his candidacy entails.  He fights tirelessly against the implementation of Sharia law (something that he has yet to produce the slightest shred of evidence as actually occurring), because “Sharia law is not just a religious code. It is also a governmental code. It happens to be both religious in nature an origin, but it is a civil code.” (March 2011) In his view, thus, the separation of church and state is imperative as long as it does not include his church, which should be the basis for the state’s laws (otherwise uprising would be warranted in his view).

This fundamental hypocrisy is evident through other veins of his campaign as well.  Mr. Santorum is a major supporter of individual liberty, especially berating governmental efforts to interfere with an individual’s choice to purchase healthcare or not (does that make him “pro-choice”?).  He argues, at least credibly, that the government has no right to interfere with the choices an individual makes about how to spend money.  He then turns around and supports a ban on individuals who are receiving welfare from going to strip clubs.  While he rails about government involvement in individual healthcare decisions, he was one of the first to sign on to the contemptible actions of Congress in intervening in the Terri Schiavo case, and to limit contraception and abortion choices to women.

I highlight Mr. Santorum, not because he has a realistic path to the presidency, but as a particularly egregious example of the culture wars that the Republicans have chosen to base their 2012 campaign upon.  None of the current or past candidates are immune, though Mr. Romney and Mr. Paul have fallen less into demagoguery than some of their peers in this regard.  While the economic policies of the current Republican party focus on smaller government with less government intrusion into one’s private life and choices, their social policies almost completely focus on morality legislation, with missives against contraception, abortion, gay marriage (actually, often sodomy in general), pornography and Muslims.

The Republican candidates need to take a moment from their (necessary) base-pandering to understand a fundamental truth (one they should hold dear being in charge of congress).  Since every government action involves expenditure of money, it is fundamentally impossible for the government to be larger morally, but smaller fiscally.  To a large extent, morality stems from religion in American (we are unique in that regard), so it is fundamentally un-American to legislate morality, as it is impossible to do so without legislating religion.

Over the past decade or more, the Republican party has sought out the support of Christian Fundamentalists/Extremists as a necessary voting bloc.  Perhaps this made sense in the short term (running against a tremendously popular but morally questionable president).  However, their long term interests may have been better served by adopting a strict secularist, governmental-minimalist stance as a foil to the traditionally over-reaching Democrats.  At least this way, the voters would have a real choice.  As it stands, the American public is forced between two ideologies which both want to intrude on our lives tremendously, albeit in different ways.