Every day, I invest time in improving my communication skills, especially how they can be deployed for strategic purposes. When I come across certain headlines, beyond the chatter and uproar, I try to deconstruct such narratives and interrogate the basis (if any) it stands on. There is such a thing known as the fallacy of misrepresentation, or in this specific case, false equivalence. It’s basically a situation where a person disingenuously compares the proverbial apples and oranges; two subjects that have little or no commonalities. In order to justify or normalise a travesty, most insincere communicators usually reference a culturally accepted phenomenon in a bid to legitimise their untenable actions. This is why most evil people are quick to weaponise religion, because the subtext of their argument is that once they can name-drop God, the reverence that well-meaning people have for such a deity will cause them to lower their guard or back down from cogent counter-arguments.
Fortunately, I have previously written extensively about the prodigal son and the psychology of Paul as a terrorist. Also, my last essay was literally premised on how people take words or stories from the bible out of context. So you can imagine my contempt when I heard the prodigal son being compared to terrorists; it’s one of the most asinine submissions I have ever heard. Whenever you see whataboutism being used as the underpinning of an argument, it is proof that such an argument cannot stand on its own logical feet and certainly cannot survive the scrutiny of common sense. I will lay out some contrasts for both parties, and hopefully you get the picture. Just dey with me.
Identity vs Ideology
The Prodigal Son is a popular anecdote or parable told by Jesus about a man who had two sons. The older son faithfully served his father, while the younger son wanted his share of their father’s estate so he could do as he pleased. Beyond the literal rendition of this parable, it has a deeper ecumenical meaning, but let’s just interrogate it on the prima facie. Basically, this prodigal son wanted to lead a lifestyle that didn’t have any restraint. He wasted the funds he had on every act of debauchery he could afford until he was broke and broken. This young man’s life reflects rebellion against his father, a wasteful lifestyle and a lack of moral restraint. He is just a person who is suffering from an identity crisis; in other words, he’s acting out of character. As far as the state or government of the day is concerned, this guy is just a spoiled brat who wants to lavish his father’s wealth on his wayward behaviour. Law enforcement agencies don’t really care about him as long as he doesn’t pose a threat to the wider society or has broken any extant law. To extrapolate this into today’s society: no police personnel in any right-thinking or well-governed society has any right to arrest him for spending money lavishly at a club; at best, he may be profiled as a person of interest. Where they might detain him is if he’s caught driving under the influence of alcohol.
A terrorist, on the other hand, is an enemy of the state who literally uses terror to actively change an existing culture and ultimately a civilisation. Let me share some practical examples that will drive home the point. When terrorists blow up an aeroplane, the culture of travelling by air for most people changes. Where terrorists attack a school and kidnap students, the culture of education and enrolment for most people changes. Where terrorists attack religious houses or assemblies, the culture of in-situ gathering or publicly commemorating events amongst adherents of such faith changes. So the ballistic weapons being used are only just tools of trade; the real endgame for a terrorist is to force a culture change. This behaviour is usually driven by an ideology. Translation: it’s not a bug, it’s a feature. The prodigal son was in his wasteful era, but a terrorist has subscribed to a lifetime of carnage. In every right-thinking society, terrorists are not just regarded as criminals but are designated as threats to national security because they align with a parallel governance structure which is incompatible with extant laws.
Choice vs Coercion
Not to hold brief for the prodigal son, but throughout the parable, there was no mention of him forcing or threatening anyone to participate in his wanton lifestyle. Was he disrespectful to his father by demanding his share of the inheritance even when his father was still alive? Of course. Did he threaten his father with dire consequences if he didn’t get what he requested? Of course not. Did he force people to party with him? No. Were there any instances where he forced himself on any woman? No. Did he force the owner of the pigs to employ him? No. My point is this: everyone who interacted with this prodigal son did so of their own free will. The circumstantial evidence suggests that they were all willing participants. Even when he became broke, he decided to get a job rather than stealing, which effectively means to dispossess others of their properties without their consent.
To put freewill and terrorism in the same sentence must be the joke of the century. Terrorists don’t write love letters to communities to align with their ideology; they violently sack those communities without any regard for lives and property. Children who are kidnapped from their classrooms don’t give their approval to be abducted. Young girls who are taken as sex slaves don’t give their consent to be raped. Young boys who are forcefully conscripted as child soldiers don’t give their consent to be used as pawns in a depraved organisation. Religious centres that are attacked don’t give consent for their right to worship to be trampled upon. In fact, in some jurisdictions, aggravated trespassing is considered a felony. Most forward-thinking societies are built on freedoms; the right to pursue individual liberties – terrorism is an existential threat to those tenets.
Repentance vs Radicalisation
Metanoia is the Greek word from which we get repentance, which essentially means to change one’s mind. In the story of the prodigal son, his repentance process is well-documented. He gets to a point of self-awareness where he thinks deeply about his situation, the inordinate decisions that led him there, and the actions he was ready to take in order to make amends. The prodigal son decided to repent and return home, saying: “I’m going back to my father. I’ll say to him, Father, I’ve sinned against God”. This excerpt perfectly captures his turning point. He clearly takes responsibility for his actions and makes a commitment to do better. His father eventually reintegrates him back into the family and celebrates his return home.
Radicalisation, according to a UNODC article which examines the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism, is the idea of a process through which an individual adopts an increasingly extremist set of beliefs and aspirations. This may include, but is not defined by, the willingness to condone, support, facilitate or use violence to further political, ideological, religious or other goals. This process doesn’t happen overnight but over time; it’s a gradual transformation based on continuous indoctrination. This means that to undo such ideology, there has to be an equally sustained anti-programming or de-radicalisation, after which the individual has to willingly renounce his or her previously held beliefs.
Forgiving and reintegrating terrorists is not something that is done lightly. Throwing the word “repentant” around without addressing justice for the victims is unfortunate, and that’s the most charitable word I could use. After Jesus conducted a counter-terrorism operation against Paul and his marauding associates, Paul was willing to change. He asked, “What do you want me to do?” He was then assigned to Ananias as his handler. Even Jesus’s appearance to Ananias and debriefing him about Paul didn’t stop the man from protesting: “Master, you can’t be serious. Everybody’s talking about this man and the terrible things he’s been doing, his reign of terror against your people in Jerusalem!” Even when Paul tried to assimilate with wider communities of faith initially, the trauma he had caused by his acts of terrorism stuck out like a sore thumb. They said amongst themselves that he came to infiltrate the ecclesia so he could arrest and bind them to be sentenced to jail. It took Barnabas’ endorsement before they slowly began to let down their guard with Paul.
Contrary to what many people may have been taught, Jesus was not a politically correct person while he walked the earth. One minute, Peter was oozing with the revelation of the Christos, and Jesus hailed him. The next minute, Peter was trying to stop his mission to the Cross, and Jesus called him a devil because it’s always about the agenda, not sentiments. One time, they told Jesus that his relatives were asking after him, and he said something profound: the only relatives he recognised were those who did the will of his father. Note, he didn’t tie that affinity to biology or social identity but to the will (agenda) of his father. So in that context, nobody can claim to be brothers with anybody except that there is a shared agenda. I have a lot more to say, but I’ll leave it at that. Selah.
The post Mfonobong Inyang: On The Matter of Terrorists and The Prodigal Son appeared first on BellaNaija – Showcasing Africa to the world. Read today!.
Every day, I invest time in improving my communication skills, especially how they can be deployed for strategic purposes. When I come across certain headlines, beyond the chatter and uproar, I try to deconstruct such narratives and interrogate the basis (if any) it stands on. There is such a thing known as the fallacy of
The post Mfonobong Inyang: On The Matter of Terrorists and The Prodigal Son appeared first on BellaNaija – Showcasing Africa to the world. Read today!. Read More
