81. Terrorist?

We all are now far too familiar with the story of Nathan Cirillo being shot while he served ceremonial duty at the War Memorial in Ottawa.  Most, if not all, will have seen the play by play montage of video clips of the shooter driving up to the War Memorial, shooting Nathan, stealing another vehicle and then charging into the Parliament Building.

          Very early in the incident the word Terrorism was brought into the conversation.  It is understandable.  However, the act continues to be identified as an act of terrorism.  I think it is important to understand that it was not an act of terrorism.  It was the act of a man who was crazier than a shit house rat.  His actions were an expression of that man’s mental illness and not any political or religious ideology.

          Those who are insistent that he was a terrorist, have latched onto the term “self-radicalized.”  It is a desperate attempt to cast the shooting into a more sensationalist light.  It would be like saying Charles Manson was self-radicalized.  But I understand the comfort behind such lies. 

          I think in many ways the truth is much more frightening.  A lone gun man propelled by his violent imaginings manages to get his hands on a gun, and then goes to wreak havoc.  The senselessness of it is much more concerning than if he had been driven by some agenda other than his insanity. 

          There are a number of facts that have been brought to light about the man in this case:

- he is not connected with the incident at St-Jean-sur-Richelieu earlier in the week

- he had a long list of criminal offenses – for drugs, violence, and robbery

- he had almost a longer list of mental health assessments and interventions

- he was wielding an outmoded hunting rifle designed in 1894.

          In short he acted alone, ill prepared, and without a plan. 

Yes, he had converted to Islam about a decade ago, and yes his version of Islam was molded and shaped by his insanity.  So I wonder, if he had converted to Christianity a decade ago, would we be calling him a Christian terrorist? Or, would we be concentrating more on the aspect of the shooters mental health?  Methinks if he had been a Christian we would be focused on the man’s mental health, not his religion.

          Why is this important for us?  And by us I mean us Christians.  

Almost two decades ago in Vancouver, Garson "Gary" Romalis was shot and wounded most likely by a man later arrested in New York who was a Christian terrorist.  The news coverage of the shooting of Romalis, targeted because he performed abortions, talked of the repugnance of such actions.  The sniper was not identified as being a radicalized Christian, but he was.  The person believed responsible for that crime and two others in Canada before shooting an abortionist in Amherst, New York, was acting out a religious ideology.  He was identified as being an anti-abortionist.

          Most people understood and accepted that this killer’s actions might reflect the beliefs of some Christians, but not the majority.  Again easy enough to understand, most of us come from a Christian heritage, a religion with which if we don’t agree with, then at least we see as benign. 

          During the struggles in Northern Ireland did we identify the IRA and the Orange Volunteers as being Christian extremists?  They were.

          How many of us knew that the man that attacked the Children’s Camp in Norway in 2011 killing 77 people, considered himself a Christian warrior?

          It seems to me that we quickly divorce the actions of extremists from our faith.  Perhaps we could afford others the same courtesy?

          For those of you of atheistic bent, did you know the shooter at École Polytechnique was an atheist?  Should we consider him a self-radicalized atheist?

I could go on, believe me, but I think I have made my point.  I do think we need to address at a local level as well as broader levels the need for mental health services. There is such a desperate need.

          But I think we also need to understand that the killing of Nathan Cirillo, and the assault on Parliament Hill was not a terrorist act.  At least not as we define terrorism. And more importantly it was not an Islamic act.

          Please, challenge those around you that refer to the shooting on Wednesday morning as an act of Islamic Terrorism. This view supports and perpetuates a toxic view of a religion that most adherents see as calling them to live in love and peace with each other – not a bad idea at all.

          I would also ask for prayers for the family of the Nathan Cirillo, and for the family of the man who killed him and then was shot and killed.