Ideas are important

Investigators looking into the failed attempt to explode a bomb in New York’s Time Square have discovered a “link” between the accused bomber and Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemeni-American cleric whose militant online lectures have been a catalyst for several recent attacks and plots. The “link” consists of the bombing suspect, Faisal Shahzad, listening to al-Awlaki’s online writings and reading his writings. At this time, no public information about possible personal interaction between Shahzad and al-Awlaki is available. However, al-Awlaki’s influence through his writings and speeches has surfaced in the investigations of more than a dozen terrorist suspects. (Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti, “Times Square Suspect Drew Inspiration From Militant Cleric,” New York Times, May 6, 2010)

That report prompted some musings about reading and listening. Do I read only those materials that I want to have influence my thinking? That influence may be positive or negative. For example, in high school I read Mein Kampf (or at least portions of it) to better understand Adolf Hitler and the power he wielded over so many Germans. His ravings left me bored, but pointed toward personal charisma as the source of his power. Alternatively, I have read the writings of mystics from many religious traditions and found myself stirred as they sought to describe an encounter with an ineffable power or reality that transcended human limitations.

Perhaps the attitude with which one approaches written material will often determine the potential that material has to influence one. Some of the evangelical Christians I’ve known emphatically objected to “polluting” their minds by reading or viewing anything that was not godly. Initially, I was skeptical of that attitude. As I’ve encountered people who spend enormous amounts of time engaged in viewing online pornography, read about terrorism suspects like Shahzad, and met people who read the Bible intensively, literally, and as the source of all answers to life’s questions, I’ve realized that words have a power many of us often underestimate. Hearing words, especially when accompanied by video, can imbue those words with an incredible emotional power.

Conversely, as someone who spends much of his life working with words, I wonder if I give my words sufficient thought before putting them online, publishing them on paper, or speaking them in a public forum. Does volume of output replace substance as the real measure of effectiveness? How can I achieve the same degree of resonance with my hearers and readers as al-Awlaki does? (Let me hastily underscore that I want my words to give life, not death.) Why do words of hate and destruction (Hitler, al-Awlaki, etc.) often evoke a much greater favorable response than do words of love and life?