by Cameron Foster

Created on: February 21, 2010

The foundation of this essay will support a philosophy whereby no one who commits suicide, by any means, is a martyr.

A martyr has always been considered as one who died at the hands of others for a common good or advancement of a principle, as the story of Jesus on the cross (whether you believe the account of Christ is not the point here, only its cultural relevance). A “martyr” who willingly dies for an evil purpose is counter to the intention and definition of what the word means.

For instance, Islamic fundamentalists (who are often targeted in writings such as these, but with good reason), think it is OK to kill themselves, and others with them, to fulfill a delusional religious teaching with no basis in evidence.

There are legion examples of extremists with a “martyr wish” from many different religions, but this in no way supports their claims of a blessed afterlife as payment for their acts.

For instance, rational people do not say that Kamikaze pilots of WWII were martyrs nor would we say that the 9/11 attackers were. These individuals committed suicide and killed many others to serve an evil purpose.

Legitimate martyrs have died for questionable (usually religious) beliefs many times, but never with intent for evil. Religious believers who choose to die a martyrs death defending their faith are worthy of the label only if brings no harm to others.

No one can truly say what goes on in the mind of someone who attempts suicide and succeeds. Interviews and counseling can help those who fail, but since Mr. Stack also perished in the airplane attack, all we can do is examine his life to see if this act meets the test of a martyr.

Mr. Stack was a 53-year old man living in a comfortable home with a wife and stepdaughter. He had tax problems but was intelligent (a software engineer), and he was a member of a band too. Obviously he was a creative person.

His band mates were shocked to learn he was capable of such an act, and they said he never exhibited violent tendencies. It is apparent he kept it all inside instead of seeking help. This was his crucial mistake.

Did his actions serve a good or evil purpose? His own testament on the Web expressed his frustration at having dealt with the IRS for many years. It is understandable why someone would become extremely frustrated if they felt unfairly treated by a government agency, especially one as powerful as the taxing authority.

However, how can any sane person justify his response? He killed someone he didn’t even know and injured 13 others, two critically. He caused extreme damage, no doubt millions of dollars worth, to the building.

He left his wife a widow. So he clearly neglected his marital responsibility as well as his duty as a citizen to function within the law and to respect other’s life and property.

All because he chose to commit a selfish act out of which no good will come. Some may say this will raise awareness of unfair taxation, but how? There is no specific grievance that has been brought forth.

The courts or the public square are the place to make a difference in such cases. Consider the “tea party” movement, whether you disagree or agree with them. They are working within the system to change it.

While our own American history shows revolution is sometimes necessary to bring about a positive result, it was only after years of dialogue and for the cause of millions of people, not one man.

So he is not a martyr, but merely a frustrated individual. He carefully planned a selfish, harmful end to his life. To make him into some type of “tax hero” would be an insult to any and all who have died with a pure heart for worthy causes.

Learn more about this author, Cameron Foster.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.