Murder

At the same time outrage explodes over the single death by gun of a teen in Florida, thousands of unarmed civilians are being massacred every month in Syria at the hands of a heavily equipped army of 300,000 directed by the dynastic dictator al-Assad. The two cases are not dissimilar. The Syrian regime sees itself as a defender of minority rights in the face of an enraged and oppressed Sunni majority. Mr. Zimmerman reportedly saw himself as a defender of the minority of home owners in his gated community against a perceived criminal threat from outsiders. 

Our human tribalism seems to be hard-wired. In-crowd vs. out-crowd is the core theme of wars and violent conflicts within societies throughout the ages. Whether it be for religion or politics, the human ability to alienate and objectify seems automatic and instinctive. It is counterproductive and life-threatening. However, as human beings in an age of science and mass communication, why are we still bound by these instincts to the point of murderous violence? Why are the conventions of violence still accepted by our leaders worldwide?

This is the question of a non-violent humanist. This is a question of a person who denies the validity of violence, no matter how it may be excused by religious texts or traditions. This is the question of a person who practices daily non-violence, even when confronted with his own violent impulse in reaction to aggression. Practicing non-violence is difficult in a peaceful society. It can be suicidal in a society which is ripped apart by terrorism and oppression by armed troops. 

The extinction of Osama Bin Laden by American commandos or the drone assassination of terrorists in Pakistan may be a more civilized examples of government actions to avoid mass murder. The line of who is, or is not, deserving of being murdered is a hard one to draw. George Zimmerman obviously was unable to make that distinction while armed with lethal force. Murder is too easy with a gun or a bomb.

As a humanist, I see violence which leads to murder as a disease. The best way of avoiding disease is to practice prevention. The weapons industries of the planet are part of the disease process of murderous violence. Nationalist military forces are part of that disease. Religious fundamentalism which justifies murder is part of that disease. Autocratic government is part of that disease. 

One positive development of the Arab Spring is a challenge to more affluent nations to examine their position on murder of civilians at the hands of armed military troops. This seems a small but momentous step in human history. International cooperation to condemn and potentially stop the mass murder of civilians is progress. In a similar way, the outrage over the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman is progressive if it can move beyond a near-sighted reaction over possible racism to a discussion of the place of murderous weapons in American society.