War, theocrats, and all that. (The Popular Condition).

The fundamentalist seeks to bring down a great deal more than buildings. Such people are against, to offer just a brief list, freedom of speech, a multi-party political system, universal adult suffrage, accountable government, Jews, homosexuals, women's rights, pluralism, secularism, short skirts, dancing, beardlessness, evolution theory, sex.

These the words of Salman Rush die, commenting on the attacks of September 11, 2001. For most of us, it was more than a decade ago when we first heard of Rushdie--back when the Ayatollah Khomeini called for Rushdie's death for allegedly defaming Islam in his novel, The Satanic Verses.

The day before Rushdie's book was to be published in the United States, on February 14, 1989, Khomeini issued a fatwa (in Islamic law, a declaration issued by a legal authority) against Rushdie and his publisher, stating:

   I would like to inform all the intrepid Muslims in the world that the
   author of the book titled "The Satanic Verses," which has been compiled,
   printed, and published in opposition to Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran,
   as well as those publishers who were aware of its contents, have been
   declared madhur el dam ["those whose blood must be shed"]. I call on all
   zealous Muslims to execute them quickly, wherever they find them, so that
   no one will dare to insult Islam again.

In short order, the Japanese translator of The Satanic Verses was stabbed to death, the Italian translator was knifed, and the Norwegian publisher was wounded in a gun attack. And in Teheran, Iran, religious fanatics filled the streets to burn books, call for the death of Rushdie, and generally work themselves up into a hopping mad frenzy of group hysteria.

Altogether, as they torched the books, some forty people were killed in associated street riots. On September 11, 2001--a dozen years later--the same fanatical mindset climbed aboard four passenger jets in the United States, itching to burn even more of what it couldn't stomach. German writer Heinrich Heine accurately warned in 1835: "Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings."

In Rushdie's case, the government of Iran in 1989 offered a $2.5 million bounty to anyone who carried out his assassination--a prize that was increased by $633,000 in 1998 by way of two supplementary rewards, $300,000 and $333,000, respectively, from an Iranian religious foundation and an Islamic student group. Consequently, Rushdie spent most of the past twelve years in hiding, traveling only with bodyguards and telling no one where he'd be in advance.

Following the September 11 hijackings, Rushdie seems less afraid. He recently commented in the Washington Post:

   How to defeat terrorism? Don't be terrorized. Don't let fear rule your
   life. Even if you are scared. The fundamentalist believes that we believe
   in nothing. In his worldview, he has his absolute certainties, while we are
   sunk in indulgences. To prove him wrong, we must first know that he is
   wrong. We must agree on what matters: kissing in public places, bacon
   sandwiches, disagreement, cutting-edge fashion, literature, generosity,
   water, a more equitable distribution of the world's resources, movies,
   music, freedom of thought, beauty, love. These will be our weapons. Not by
   making war but by the unafraid way we choose to live shall we defeat them.

I'd add some F-16s to the weapons list but, other than that, Rushdie's got it right. We must agree on what matters. And yes, that means pork sandwiches and Jennifer Lopez's dress at the Grammys and freedom of thought and Manhattan and pluralism and Ellen DeGeneres and free enterprise and Jews and free speech and Kid Rock and secularism and The Who and gutsy women who aren't kept under wraps.

Kofi Annan, secretary-general of the United Nations, recently said that we should now define ourselves not only by what we're for but by what we're against. "I would reverse that proposition, because in the present instance what we are against is a no-brainer," says Rushdie. "Suicidal assassins ram wide-bodied aircraft into the World Trade Center and Pentagon and kill thousands of people: um, I'm against that. But what are we for? What will we risk our lives to defend? Can we unanimously concur that all the items in the above list--yes, even the short skirts and dancing--are worth dying for?"

And can we concur that enough is enough? It was eighteen years ago on that Beirut morning when two suicide bombers shattered the U.S. barracks. Claiming credit? Shiites, religious fanatics inspired by Khomeini, acting to ignite an Islamic jihad against "the enemies of God."

And after so many years of this, can we finally concur that we're done being a punching bag for a bunch of medieval losers and dysfunctional theocrats? Says Rushdie:

   Twenty years ago, it was already de rigueur in the Muslim world to blame
   all its troubles on the West and, in particular, the United States. I
   wanted then to ask a question that is no less important now: Suppose we say
   that the ills of our societies are not primarily America's fault, that we
   are to blame for our own failings? Might we not, by accepting our own
   responsibility for our problems, begin to learn to solve them for
   ourselves?

Nice thought, but improbable--and too long-run for what we're up against.

As I'm writing this, investigators from Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and U.S. intelligence agencies are jointly reacting to Osama bin Laden's claim that al-Qaeda possesses biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. In addition, news services in Pakistan are reporting that at least two briefcase nuclear weapons may have reached U.S. shores, intended for use in New York City.

In the November/December 2001 Humanist, Alan Hale asks if we shouldn't "rise above our darkest impulses" and not to sink "down to their level." I wonder. What if I see a religious crackpot coming up behind an American Airlines employee with a box cutter, itching to cut her throat? Is it a dark impulse to kill him? Is it "down to their level" when we stop ruthless killers? I don't think so.

Hale worries, too, about our aggressive military response providing "recruitment incentives for our adversaries." It might be the opposite, of course--that is, that the strongest recruitment incentive might be delivered by the one remaining superpower, the largest obstacle to turning the planet into Allahland, not punching back.

The bottom line, says Hale: "You can't intimidate with threats of death someone who considers it the highest honor to be killed for a cause." No, but if you kill him you don't have to worry much about whether he can be intimidated--or whether he's going to kill.

Ralph R. Reiland is an economics professor at Robert Morris College in Pittsburgh.