Do religious fanatics have souls or consciences? Not according to President George W. Bush - at least, not so long as the fanatics are Muslims. Unfortunately for Bush, such a position is neither theologically nor morally defensible. It does, however, betray Bush's fundamental failure to understand what sort of situation he is dealing with.

In a recent speech in Hershey, Pennsylvania, President Bush said:

These terrorists will not be stopped by their own conscience; they don't have a conscience. But they will be stopped. They will be stopped because our great nation is resolute abroad, we're vigilant at home, and we are absolutely determined to prevail. ... This is a war against people who will hide in a cave; a war against people who hide in the shadows of remote cities, or big cities, and then they strike and they kill. And they kill innocent people. They have no -- as I said, they have no conscience, they have no sense of guilt. ... We've got to be strong and resolute and determined. We will never show weakness in the face of these people who have no soul, who have no conscience, who care less about the life of a man or a woman or a child. We've got to do everything we can here at home. And there's no doubt in my mind that, with the Almighty's blessings and hard work, that we will succeed in our mission.

Mark A. R. Kleiman comments:

"Doing objectively rotten things" and "having no conscience" simply aren't the same thing. Lincoln saw that with respect to slavery. It was clear to him that slavery was wrong, but he never denied that its defenders thought they were fighting for the right.

President Bush, with his own religious commitment, ought to be able to understand that other people have religious (or politico-religious) commitments that lead them to commit awful crimes. Do the abortion clinic bombers of Operation Rescue have "no conscience"? Not at all. They're extremely conscientious. It's just that their consciences are warped by their fanaticism.

The notion that killing lots of innocent people is pleasing to God seems very odd to secularists. But it shouldn't seem odd to someone who believes that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God.

I had my own comments in mind, but I don't think that I could do better than the above. Kleiman is right: by treating these people like sociopathic criminals rather than religious fanatics, Bush and his advisors will necessarily misinterpret their actions, fail to properly predict what sorts of things they will do in the future, and fail to influence them in any positive way. Bush, of all people, should understand what it means to be driven by religious commitments. So why does he act like he doesn't?

Read More:

• Recent Books on Islam
• Islam
• What is Jihad?
• Islam, Violence, and Terrorism
• Islamic Extremists
• War on Terrorism
• Religion in Iraq
• Fundamentalism
• Religious Right