The following article, written by Carla Power, was originally printed in Time magazine, April 7th, 2008.

Stand-up comics are the suicide bombers of the cultural world. They act alone, using stripped-down devices — a mike, and maybe a glass of water or a barstool. Their weapon, language, is decidedly low-tech, so they rely on the element of surprise to startle unsuspecting crowds. "If a joke is set up properly, and detonates properly," says Irish comedian Abie Philbin Bowman, the effect is revelatory: "If you and your audience see something in a new way, and the explosion is joy and laughter, that’s the most rewarding thing in the world, apart from sex."

Bowman, 26, a rising star on the Irish stand-up scene, has been setting off comic explosions for 18 months now with Jesus: The Guantánamo Years. In the one-man routine, Bowman is Jesus, who, at the behest of his aging dad, returns to earth for a comeback tour. Since he’s a bearded Palestinian willing to die as a martyr, the messiah is stopped at U.S. Immigration and shipped off to Guantánamo Bay. He finds himself trapped on an island that’s become a maximum-security prison, designed by the people who brought the world Kentucky Fried Chicken: "Tiny battery-size cages, guarded by ignorant teenagers ... and characterized by a profound feeling of despair."

The show is an unsettling weave of smart-ass wit and surreal situations from the age of terror. A joke involving communion and oral sex shares a platform with the calculation that al-Qaeda would have to blow up 580 planes a year to compete with the tobacco industry for casualties. This month, an audio version of the show, which has shocked Christian conservatives and delighted fans from Edinburgh to Lahore, was launched on iTunes. E-audiences might miss the comedian’s crown of thorns and Gitmo-orange jumpsuit, but that’s not dire, as the show, he says, is "all ideas." He also has a new show, Eco-Friendly Jihad, premiering this month in Galway, Ireland, about an environmentalist who becomes so frustrated with the West’s inability to cut carbon emissions that she joins al-Qaeda. 

Bowman, who is working on a graduate degree in peace studies by day, sees comedy as akin to a Gandhian exercise in passive resistance. It’s a kind of intellectual sit-in — "a nonviolent act that can cause a change in public awareness." An atheist whose skepticism of organized religion was honed growing up during Ireland’s Troubles, Bowman nonetheless claims his Guantánamo show is deeply Christian. It stands up "for American values, and for Christian values," he says. "Guantánamo Bay is profoundly un-Christian. I’m simply doing what Jesus did during his life: going around from place to place, and speaking up for what he believed in."

Last November, Bowman played at a festival in Lahore during Pakistan’s six-week state of emergency. He knew better than to tackle either President Pervez Musharraf or the Prophet Muhammad onstage, but found his show resonated with an audience used to seeing their countrymen locked up under antiterror laws. Back in Ireland, he’s rankled a few Christian conservatives who have picketed his show, calling it blasphemous. One elected official of Northern Ireland’s loyalist Democratic Unionist Party, angered by the comparison between Jesus’ martyrdom and al-Qaeda suicide bombers, urged a boycott; and in a heated BBC radio debate, Bowman quipped how weird it was to have someone from the Orange Order — a Protestant fraternity — "criticizing [me] for dressing up in orange and talking about Jesus." 

But Bowman also has a big Christian fan base. He’s been invited to stage the show in various American churches; in Boston, seven Protestant ministers came backstage to congratulate him on its "profoundly Christian message." "A lot of Christians are so resentful that Bush is hijacking the language of Jesus to do these awful things," he says. "I’m fairly sure that telling jokes about God isn’t as blasphemous as torturing his children." For an age-of-terror comic like Bowman, the best jokes make for nervous laughter.

Noteworthy Europeans

Several times a day, you and I see two symbols that are supposed to represent our political and cultural destiny. The first is a window which is impossible to see through. The second is a bridge that goes from nowhere to nowhere. In a fit of monumental oversight these images were chosen by the European Union to adorn its most tangible icon: the Euro banknote. It gets worse. The bridges and windows are not only embarrassingly potent metaphors – they're hypothetical. We're not looking at windows which adorn the Sacre Coeur or St Peter's Basilica. We're not admiring bridges which span the Rhine or the Danube. That would have been too controversial, apparently. Five-hundred years after the Renaissance, the boldest emblem Europe can produce is generic, fictional architecture. And politicians wonder why we find Europe uninspiring.

Imagine the six original members of the EU project as a European version of the Simpsons. France is the neurotic, highly-strung, controlling mother who wears the trousers, tells everyone what to do and drinks too much wine. She believes she's still young and irresistible, but in fact she's rather old and quite unattractive. Germany is the serious, hard-working, emotionally-absent father figure: reasonable, but prone to bouts of extreme violence. Then we have the three kids. Holland is the rebellious, bisexual, dope-smoking teenager. Belgium is the middle child: internally divided, outwardly dull, constantly trying to bring everyone together. Luxembourg is still too small for anyone to take much notice of. This leaves Italy as the swarthy, cool, irresponsible uncle who still rides a motorbike, smokes too much and has some pretty dodgy connections.

In the bad old days, Mummy and Daddy used to fight all the time. Uncle would invariably take Daddy's side, but then switch allegiance when it became clear that Mummy was winning. As always happens, it was the kids who got caught in the middle. Eventually the family agreed to stop fighting and share more. This worked so well that they decided to invite other relatives into this arrangement. Now the whole thing's a bit crowded and nobody's sure who is in charge anymore. In all the confusion, we, the people of Europe have lost sight of the EU's most incredible achievement – and I'm not talking about Franco-German peace. As EU citizens, it is our BIRTHRIGHT to live and work in Tuscany, Paris, Sweden, Catalonia, Vienna, Crete, Milan, Provence, Athens, Scotland, Amsterdam, Cyprus, Rome, Barcelona, the Pyrenees or Prague. Remember that next time you're paying five euro to sip coffee in the rain, while listening to Liveline.

Which brings us back to the banknotes. As our glorious leader might ask: what or who should de notes denote? Most citizens complain that the EU is too caught up in ideology, bureaucracy and identity crises to address the needs of real people. I say we get back to real people. Surely in our long, rich history there are certain individuals who command universal admiration. Who could object to a Euro banknote featuring Socrates, da Vinci, or Mozart?

Of course there are many candidates who would be more divisive. It could be argued that Winston Churchill did more for modern Europe than anyone else in our history. But he would be a very problematic choice – both for his politics, and his many controversial military decisions. The trouble with politicians, sportsmen and military heroes is that they are invariably associated both with those whom they championed, and those they defeated. For all their talent, I doubt we'll ever see Euro notes featuring Otto von Bismarck, Eric Cantona or Julius Caesar.

Instead, we should look to fields where human endeavour is of universal benefit: the arts, the sciences, technology and medicine. If choosing seven individuals proves too contentious, each note could instead feature several people from a chosen field. Thus we could have a composers' note, an inventors' note and a scientists' note. Ideally, prospective candidates should have connections with various parts of Europe. James Joyce – who travelled widely, incorporated many European languages in his works, and lived for a time in Dublin, Vienna, Trieste and Paris – would be perfect in this respect.

But whether we favour individuals or groups, the biggest problem would be striking a balance. There are seven banknotes to serve twelve Eurozone countries – with the possibility of more nations joining in the coming years. If the notes featured more Italians than Germans, there would be great resentment. Then there's the question of religion – how would the tally of Catholics and Protestants add up? Would Jews or atheists get a look in? Arguably the most contentious question would be how many women should be featured.

To date the EU has tried to avoid controversy and unpopularity by skirting these questions – plumping instead for generic architecture. That cowardice is a big part of the EU's problem. The European tradition – from Socrates to the Enlightenment to modern democracy – is founded on debate, discussion and dissent. The very act of arguing about which individuals best represent the European ideal would engage citizens across the Union in a common conversation. Not everyone will agree on the result. Plus ca change. But at the very least we will have exchanged ideas about our past culture, present identity and future aspirations.

We could even go one further, and delve into the cesspit of popular culture. The BBC ran a series recently called 'Great Britons', in which ten historians/celebrities were selected as advocates for ten of British history's most influential figures. After they had all put their case, there was a public vote to select the Greatest Brit. Why not run a similar series across the Eurozone, concluding with a Eurovision style final in which the top twenty candidates are given a four-minute summary, followed by a public vote?

It would be tacky. It would be vulgar. It would be democratically imperfect. But such an initiative would reach places that EU summits never reach, engaging Europeans from all walks of life in the political decision-making process. What is the EU afraid of? From an economic perspective, it doesn't matter who is on the Euro banknote. But at a cultural level, for the citizens of Europe to feel ownership of the selection process, and identification with the people featured, is more important than the result.

If all this proves too much for Brussels, I say we force their hand. Using existing EU grants, we should build bridges and windows throughout the country, to the exact specifications of those featured in the current banknotes. Then we should start flogging coach trips to American and Japanese tourists, showing them 'the distinguished Irish architecture which inspired the Euro banknotes'. Let's see how Mummy and Daddy like that.

Jesus Christ is often associated with a naive brand of pacifism, which apparently "just doesn't work in the real world".

Perhaps in a 'conventional' war -- such as the fight against Hitler -- Christ's teachings are impractical. However, they are ideally suited to undermining terrorism.

Christ's philosophy of "turning the other cheek" is not about being too weak, too spineless or too afraid to fight back. It is about understanding that if you retaliate violently, you will almost definitely cause further suffering and injustice. This will feed directly into a cycle of violence and retribution.

Such cycles of violence are a familiar feature in many terrorist conflicts, perhaps most famously those of Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine.

The terrorist attacks on 9/11 were completely unjustifiable, and America deserved the sympathy of the world in their aftermath. But the response of the Bush administration, in Afghanistan, Guantanamo and Iraq, has done nothing to help the victims of 9/11, and has instead created even more victims, adding fuel to the fire of international terrorism.

Trying to fight terrorism with a war is idiotic. If there's one thing terrorists thrive on, it's violent conflict.

The first step towards defeating terrorism is understanding what causes it, how it works and what will best undermine it. To borrow a line from Chinese philosophy: "know thy enemy, and know thyself, and a thousand victories shall be yours."

Most terrorists would like to be popular revolutionaries. But they have a problem: they are chronically unpopular. Blowing up innocent civilians doesn't typically win over public opinion.

In fact, the only circumstance in which ordinary people will support extreme violence is when they believe that it is undermining an even greater evil. Hence, for example, the widespread American support for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The American public in 1945 were not callous and bloodthirsty. They supported dropping the atom bombs only because it was the quickest way to end a terrible war.

So terrorists only hope of popularity is to portray themselves as opponents of an even greater evil, and to attach themselves to legitimate causes. The IRA claimed to be bombing for Catholic civil rights. The London suicide-bombers expressed anger at the suffering of ordinary Palestinians and Iraqis. In themselves, these are perfectly just grievances. But it takes a particularly demented brand of lunatic to conclude that the best way to alleviate suffering in Belfast or Gaza is to bomb a commuter train in London. That's on a par with finding ants in your kitchen, and trying to get rid of them by flying to Botswana and shooting a giraffe.

What cause did the 9/11 hijackers claim as justification? Primarily, it was the on-going American support for the corrupt Saudi Royal Family. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudi nationals – as is Osama bin Laden.

All of the hijackers died on September the 11th, 2001. But the response of the Bush administration has enabled those nineteen murderers to hijack America's foreign policy ever since. The fresh injustices perpetrated in Afghanistan, Guantánamo and Iraq have inspired a whole new generation of terrorists. And so the cycle continues.

For many years, a similar cycle took place -- admittedly on a much smaller scale -- in Northern Ireland. The peace process there illustrates that when the underlying injustice is addressed fairly, support for violence evaporates. Catholic civil rights and equality have been more or less achieved, peace has been brokered by both sides and there is now no-one who wants to return to violence.

By contrast, Israel has been fighting a "war on terror" for 60 years. At every stage in that conflict, the number of Palestinian dead has been three, four or five times the number of Israeli casualties. Militarily, Israel has divided, outgunned and outmanoeuvered its opponents at almost every step. Yet despite this overwhelming military superiority there is no prospect of peace, because Israel has not addressed the underlying injustice – the suffering of ordinary Palestinians.

Some readers will think that I am advocating conceding to terrorist demands. I am not. That would be dangerous, stupid and immoral. I am arguing that the USA should try to end genuine injustices. I am suggesting that Catholics deserve civil rights, regardless of whether some idiot in a balaclava sets off a bomb in a pub. I am suggesting that the people of Saudi Arabia deserve a democratically elected government which does not squander the country's oil wealth on bribery and corruption.

Fundamentally, I am arguing that if America embraces the best elements of its strong Christian tradition, and it's passion for justice and liberty, it would do a great deal of good in the world, and cripple global terrorism into the bargain. Who's going to support blowing up a government which has just built you a brand new university hospital?

If that sounds naive, take a look at global events since 2001. America has deployed unprecedented military resources in an attempt to destroy terrorism by force. The result? Terrorism is stronger than ever. More Americans have died in Bush's wars than were killed in the twin towers. If anyone is guilty of naivete, it is the architects of George Bush's foreign policy.

Millions of Americans are disillusioned with their own government, angry that they were misled into war, and increasingly afraid that the rest of the world hates them. Those people need to agitate for change.

As for those of us outside America, particularly those -- like myself -- who live in privileged parts of Europe, there are a couple of things we should bear in mind.

There is serious problem of anti-American bigotry in Europe, and elsewhere.

Bigotry is a bit like alcoholism. If you stopped 1,000 people on the street, and asked them whether alcoholism is good or bad, they would all tell you that it's bad. Just as they would tell you that bigotry is bad. But unfortunately, some of them would still be alcoholics. And some would be bigots.

And, like alcoholism, the first step to treating bigotry is admitting that you have a problem.

So here goes.

I used to be an anti-American bigot.

I made the mistake of blaming ordinary American citizens for the misdeeds, stupidity and arrogance of their government. It was lazy and irrational of me.

Many non-Americans, particularly Europeans, enjoy complaining about America. We blame the USA for everything: we complain about its dumbed-down culture of movies and fast food; we complain about its appalling democratic deficit; and its self-interested foreign policy of stockpiling oil and selling arms to dictators. All of which is a fair assessment... of the European Union. We are masters at projecting the things we don't like about ourselves onto America.

In the interests of retaining perspective, let's ask ourselves: do any of us want to live in a world dominated by China? Or Russia? Or Iran?

Personally, I'd like the planet to be run by a coalition of Sweden, Holland and New Zealand -- but I'm not exactly holding my breath.

If America is our preferred dominant world power, then that is all the more reason to criticise it astutely. But the purpose of that criticism should always be to inform and improve, never to make ourselves feel morally superior.

I'd like to conclude where I began, with a brief quote from Jesus. It applies equally to the struggle against terrorism, and the challenges of everyday life:

"Be not afraid".

Abie

Dublin, May 2007