What makes a father tell on a son?

The Gospel of Luke, found in The Holy Bible, tells a very sweet story of rebellion, recalcitrance, and redemption. "A certain man had two sons: and the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living," Jesus of Nazareth is quoted telling his disciples (KJV). Shortly after, one son takes off for a "far country" in which he squanders all his "substance with riotous living"--a weekend in Vegas, perhaps. His consumerist adventure, however, is cut short soon when famine falls over the land--and the big banks, having pocketed tax-payer money, stop lending. He looks into indentured servitude temporarily--farming and feeding pigs--often even stealing "husks" prepared for the swine. Then it dawns on him that only a few thousand miles away, his own Father, a wealthy tycoon, has money large enough to fill barrels with. "How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!"

He sets forth back with his tail tucked, but before arriving at home, from "a great way off," his father saw him, and "ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him." He repents of his deeds--doesn't even feel worthy of being called a son anymore. Make me a servant, instead.  Of course no Father would accept such offer--especially if the child's mother is anywhere nearby. So, he orders that the best shoes, robes, and rings be placed on this once lost but now found prodigal son. And within minutes, the bastard child is treated to a welcome back party--filled with music and dancing. This doesn't do much to delight the loyal, do-gooding son who comes back from the field to witness the black sheep of the house more celebrated than the white lamb. So, he gets mad and whines to his dad about how much a committed child he's been, and how very little was ever done for him, but now that the bastard boy, who squandered his lot in bars and brothels, comes back begging for more, he gets a hero's welcome?

The Father comforts his sniveling son, telling him not to worry, for the written will ascribes him everything but the rocking chair. More importantly, he iterates, "It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found."

I venture to say the prodigal son knew all along his many crimes could never compete with his father's compassion. His proposition to be accepted as a mere servant was B.S.--and he knew it. The same father who watched him grow up from infant to infidel could not bear to see his own flesh and blood suffer. He played his cards and came up well.

This narrative must be a far cry from that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab imagined when he placed a phone call home last October--a call so startling it provoked a visit from his father, the prominent Nigerian banker Umaru Abdul Mutallab, to the U.S. embassy in Abuja, Nigeria, alerting CIA officials of the radical views his son espoused, which he feared--but believed--could yield a terroristic plot sometime soon. This move earned Umar Farouk a special place on the 550,000-rich Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE) list.

Reports suggest Mr. Mutallab was not only "concerned" about the extremist rhetoric conveyed during the call, but he feared his son was missing and in Yemen, and vulnerable to indoctrination by terrorists.

It would be wrong, unconscionable, and unwise to cast any aspersions on Mr. Mutallab--especially with very few and incomplete details to work with. No one should have to suffer such grief for the sins of a relative--not even a son. And a 23-year-old man is, in most countries I know of, considered legally liable for his actions. But in the few days since the Flight 253 incident, many have exalted the actions of Mutallab with no critical look at the consequences it might create for a future where private and domestic problems are dealt with in public spaces--and with state-sponsored devices.

A Nigerian newspaper couldn't keep from salivating over what it saw as "courage" manifested: "When the business mogul suspected the extremist views of his son, he reportedly alerted the US authorities. Considering his towering profile in the corporate Nigeria, many believe Mutullab took a very brave step that many business men of his ilk would not have taken."

Let's examine that for a second. At what age or stage does a son become uncontrollable and irredeemable--thus better handled by law enforcement officials? Does it bother anyone that in this neoliberal world we have let be established, no one is safe anymore from the fangs of quick-fixes and instant-based solutions, in lieu of time-consuming, meticulous approaches that do more than eliminate threats--but go to the bottom of the threat-creating institutions and address them adequately? Is this the wave of the future--parents telling on kids? And consequently: Kids telling on parents?

Mr. Mutullab is father to 16 kids, so it's possible the individual attention each child needs was denied Umar growing up. It's also possible the privileged, well-to-do child never found abundance of the kind of compassion--not market-based financial endowment--the Prodigal Son parable details. But Mutullab isn't unique in this regard. Most children, today, probably share similar concerns. What is unique, however, is the approach a man with such personal accomplishments believed was necessary upon hearing the extremist protestations of his child.

Classmates and teachers who knew Umar Farouk before his recent trips to Yemen suggest he embodied anything but the traits of a terrorist. A Washington Post report revealed this much, from a former teacher: "When Abdulmutallab spoke, he was courteous. He didn't publicly express radical thoughts, didn't lash out against U.S. policies in Iraq or Afghanistan. He didn't express core Muslim grievances such as Israel's treatment of Palestinians. He often handed out money to poor Yemenis and African migrants." Another wasn't far off: "He was friendly. He always smiled. We didn't see an ounce of aggressive behavior." As good a human being as I try to be, I can almost bet most of my former teachers wouldn't come close to considering me in such esteemed light. In other words, his profile fails to match that being promulgated by right-wing torture-freaks--like Pat Buchanan--who believe all "terrorists" are subhuman species incapable of rational and logical communication--thus deserving no recognizable rights.

Obviously the road from mild-mannered student to accused terrorist is crooked and meandering; but if society is invested in a "Child-as-Problem" concept, rather than "Condition-as-Problem," the future looks bleak for any hopes of redeeming once lost but now found children. In such future, not even child soldiers have a compassionate society eager to embrace and nurture them back into humanity. In such future, parents resort to cheap, costless (but ethically costly) means to keep their kids in check--palm prints of a suspect society. And, of course, kids, never the cowardly type, would seek to wreak retribution against the adults they see now more as adversaries than allies.

This is a model for generational war and social pandemonium.

If sons can't feel safe speaking to Fathers about personal troubles, if daughters can't whisper into Mothers' ears deep-seated travails, who can confidently claim wild beasts are morally subordinate to human beings?