THE handling of the bombing in Boston, with an entire metropolitan region put into lockdown as the suspects were hunted, has handed would-be terrorists and criminals with new incentives, the libertarian blogger George Donnelly argues:

For a maximum investment of perhaps $1 or $2 thousand dollars, ideologically-motivated individuals can cost the economy perhaps as much as $1 billion dollars in economic output. Nobody yet knows how much it costs to shut down down Boston for a day but $1 billion is about how much the city produces on a daily basis.

What is it that leads to such over-reaction? How can so many be put into a state of panic and submission over a relatively minor threat? Tyrannical bureaucracy and individual spinelessness make terrorism highly effective. The more criminals see that they can control large numbers of people, the more motivated they will be, just as school shootings become more common the more would-be murderers know they can make easy victims out of the utterly passive inhabitants of school buildings.

— Comments —

W.F. S. writes:

I’m far from “anti-cop.” I’m a retired career police officer. However, I have seen no outrage or concern over the vision of camo-clad military Wehrmacht tactics utilized there. I was stunned to see local police dressed in full camo military gear pulling citizens from their homes and entering those homes to conduct searches. When has this become acceptable? Have any homeowners balked and protested such intrusion? This sets an ominous precedence and the general capitulation on the part of the citizenry is most disturbing to me. “He who forfeits a bit of liberty for ‘security’ deserves neither .” (Benjamin Franklin)

An aside: an armed citizenry wouldn’t be cowering in their homes through the ordeal.

Laura writes:

Socialism dissolves and destroys the individual. This military show of strength is a sign of devastating weakness.

Not only are citizens disarmed, but we show no resolution or strength in preventing these attacks. Why were the Tsarnaevs in this country? Why are many thousands more like them here right now as we speak? They are here because of the nihilistic thrill of creating a multicultural utopia. It would take a love of our own and the will to defend ourselves to turn them away. And we could turn them away.

As a commenter at NRO said today:

We can pay a very high price in eternal vigilance, interspersed with episodes like Boston’s, wherein the life of an entire metropolitan region is put in suspended animation for a day, or days, at a time (with all the cumulative economic consequences).

Or we can solve the problem.

As the late Lawrence Auster wrote in August, 2006:

“We will have terrorist attacks and threats of terrorists attacks and  inconvenient and humiliating security measures and the disruption of ordinary activities FOREVER, as long as Muslims are in  the West in any significant numbers. The Muslim terrorists are part and parcel of the Muslim community. According to a survey reported in the Scotsman,
24 percent of Muslims in Britain (I never describe them as ‘British  Muslims’) believe the July 2005 London bombings were justified. Imagine that. Not only do these Muslims in Britain support terrorism against  Britain, they’re not afraid to say so openly to a pollster! The  unchangeable fact is that wherever there is a sizable Muslim community there will be a very large number of terror supporters and therefore—inevitably—actual terrorists as well.

“This is our future, FOREVER, unless we stop Muslim immigration and initiate a steady out-migration of Muslims from the West until their remaining numbers are a small fraction of what they are now and there are no true believers among the ones that remain. Travelers  from Muslim countries must be tightly restricted as well. Muslims must  be essentially locked up inside the Muslim lands, with only carefully screened individuals allowed into the non-Muslim world.

“The enemy are among us, in America, in Britain, in the West, and will  remain so until we remove them from the West and indeed from the entire  non-Muslim world. As extreme as this sounds, it is a no-brainer. There is no other solution. All other responses to this problem add up to meaningless hand-wringing. The hand-wringing will go on FOREVER, along with the terrorist attacks and the threat of terrorist attacks, until we take the ONLY STEPS that can actually and permanently end the threat.”

James P. writes:

Donnelly is incorrect that the “maximum investment” was a couple of thousand dollars. The terrorists also had to be willing to invest their lives. If the Tsarnaevs had merely spent a few thousand to set off some bombs, and then tamely surrendered, then Boston wouldn’t have gone into lockdown. Boston only had to spend all that money apprehending them because they were armed and willing to kill — and as a result, one of them is dead and they other one easily could have been.

I agree with WFS that the images of the Wehrmacht going house to house were disturbing. But I can certainly see few people, on looking outside and seeing the Wehrmacht, daring to refuse them permission to search. If I remember rightly, the Wehrmacht was even pointing their guns at innocent citizens. We can only hope that someone whose house was (in my opinion) unlawfully searched or who was unlawfully confined to the equivalent of house arrest will have the courage to bring a suit against the authorities.

Laura writes:

Donnelly is incorrect that the “maximum investment” was a couple of thousand dollars. The terrorists also had to be willing to invest their lives.

Yes, of course. That’s an important correction.

Strong Man writes:

I was disappointed in your quoting and apparently endorsing Lawrence Auster’s remarks about active discrimination against Muslims. Given his blatantly uninformed comments about Mormons in the past, this wasn’t surprising from him, but it doesn’t make it okay.

True Islam is peaceful and very stable, and Muslims are often actually closer to living Christian family values than many Christians.

He promotes a religious screening test for citizenship and immigration, and active religious discrimination in America! Has he forgotten one of the key motivators for the creation of this great land?

Religious freedom is vital to the existence of America and to thriving Christianity in this country. If we want to have religious freedom for Christians, we must allow it for all religions.

Laura writes:

Your statement is filled with error and, forgive me for being blunt, but I have to say that your comments suggest that Mr. Auster was correct about Mormons when he said they are not deep or comprehensive thinkers.

 True Islam is peaceful and very stable…

Then “true Islam” doesn’t exist because wherever there are Muslims in any significant numbers, there is violence against infidels. Jihad is part of the doctrine of Islam. Wherever Islam exists in significant force, there are also serious restrictions on freedom of expression. Mohammed must never be insulted and those who do deprecate him often face death. Have you read the news in recent years at all? Have you encountered any historical writings about Islam?

Muslims are often actually closer to living Christian family values than many Christians.

Muslim and Christian family values are not at all the same. Christianity is opposed to polygamy, to the repudiation of wives, to stoning for adultery, to honor killings, to sequestration of women and to head-to-toe coverings for women, as the gruesome-looking, black-clad cashier at our local Whole Foods store demonstrates. The Muslim family is despotic. Many Westernized Muslims barely subscribe to these value but they adhere to a belief system that does support those values and inevitably some among them will take their religion seriously.

The Muslim family does function well in some ways too. The fact that Islam is a false, inherently aggressive and conquering belief system does not mean that it contains no truth or goodness. It wouldn’t have flourished if it did not provide workable models for living and if there weren’t many decent people who adhered to it.

Religious freedom is vital to the existence of America.

Islam is not just a religion; it’s also a political ideology that entails shari’ah. Islam is a comprehensive political, social and religious system. It cannot coexist peacefully with Christianity. Muslims themselves do not believe in religious freedom, as we see from the banning of Christianity and other faiths in Islamic countries and the systematic persecution of Christians, Hindus, Jews, and Buddhists by Islamic governments.

If we want to have religious freedom for Christians, we must allow it for all religions.

The opposite is true. If we want true freedom for Christians, we must disallow it for a faith and political ideology that seeks to conquer Christianity.

When we allow true freedom for other religions, in the sense that we do not discriminate in any way between faiths or favor Christian values, which are in the simplest analysis values that are the most enlightened and in accord with reason, Christians are inevitably persecuted. There is no way around it.

David C. writes:

Regarding the commenter at National Review Online who wants to solve the terror problem by excluding Muslims from the United States and other Western nations, I want to ask — and I know you did not write that comment but you hosted it so I assume you agree — how is this different from feminist separatists who want to solve the problem of rape by keeping men and women apart from each other? I think I might know your answer but I wanted to see if you would tell me.

I’m as eager to see the terror problem solved (insofar as it can actually be solved) as anybody. But I’m skeptical that excluding Muslims from the U.S.A. will actually work. I don’t mean that it wouldn’t work if it were actually possible to keep Muslims out. I mean that it isn’t possible to keep Muslims out. At least it won’t be possible to keep jihadists out. They would of course claim not to be Muslim and go to whatever lengths are necessary to cover their tracks. They are determined people as we all know and if it takes years to penetrate the border of the U.S.A. they will work for years to penetrate the border of the U.S.A. So the only Muslims who would not enter the United States are the ones who wouldn’t cause a problem in the first place (though according to the July 2005 study Mr. Auster quoted 24% of those Muslims are perfectly unwelcome as far as I’m concerned).

Laura writes:

Excluding Muslims is in no way comparable to separating men and women!! I think you know that. Muslims have home countries that honor and encourage their way of life. (I do not advocate violently expelling Muslims or mistreating them. See Mr. Auster’s speech, “A Real Islam Policy for a Real America.”)

Sure there would be jihadists who would penetrate our borders if Muslims lived elsewhere, but they would have no networks supporting them here as they do now. And the fact is, there would be fewer jihadists here. Furthermore, there’s not just the issue of terror. There’s also the question of cultural preservation.

Strong Man adds to his earlier point:

I fully agree that this German family should be given full consideration for asylum. What a sad story!

But, don’t you see that if we allow the government to pick and choose immigrants or residents on the basis of religion (Muslim), it hurts people of all religions, including these Christians?

Laura writes:

No, I don’t see the logic of your point at all.

If we favored Christian values, this family would have no problem settling here at all. It was easier for the Tsarnaevs to remain here than the Romeikes.

Terry Morris writes:

Commenter Strong Man apparently doesn’t understand the “Religion of Peace,” nor the first amendment. What has “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” have to do with disallowing religions hostile to Christianity and Christianity’s forms of civil government? Is Strong Man not aware that Islam rejects both religious clauses of the first amendment, and, in fact, the entire Bill of Rights?

Mary writes:

Americans in general no longer have an understanding of religious zeal in any form; it is totally alien to our culture at this point. Religious devotion is something tepid and malleable. Christianity has been totally marginalized; Judaism has been secularized for decades; Atheists have friendly, inviting blogs. Therefore the average American cannot perceive of the fervor and determination behind the Muslim view. They think we, as Americans, have the job of “enlightening” Muslims, a view which is hopelessly naive and rather elitist at the same time. Because of this America cannot understand and won’t support a proper Christian response to Muslim aggression.

Muslims, on the other hand, view the passivity of our tepid brand of Christianity with incredulity. They simply can’t comprehend the depths of our apathy and it’s nothing if not a temptation, an invitation even, to dominate us. We are seen as weak and effeminate and, ironically, also in need of enlightenment.

These are the fruits of our multicultural experiment.

Laura writes:

I would qualify your statement. Religious zeal in itself is considered evil. Most believe that the problem with “Islamic extremists” is precisely that they are zealous, not that their creed is dangerous. The proper response is thus to disparage and denounce all religious zeal — as if zeal is the same no matter what principles or facts it defends — in the name of tolerance. The only religious zeal that is permissible is the zeal for tolerance.

We see this thinking in Sunday’s homily by Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley in Boston who called the bombings “a perversion” of Islam and who said, “The crimes of the two young men must not be the justification for prejudice against Muslims and against immigrants. The Gospel is the antidote to the ‘eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth’ mentality.”

Notice how he conflates all discrimination with “an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth mentality.” That suggests that to differentiate Muslims in any way in public life or immigration policies, even non-violently, is evil vengeance, “an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth.”

Nicholas writes:

In your recent article and comments on the Boston bombers, you talk a great deal about how society and indeed civil law should defend Christian values and a Christian world view. It seems to me that you don’t think that Christian values can survive or thrive in an open marketplace of ideas. I suspect myself that they cannot, but I have very different notions as to why this is the case. I’m curious to hear your thoughts on this. If Christianity is correct and true, why does it need special protection from society and the state?

My apologies if I have mischaracterized your position.

Laura writes:

If you revere the marketplace of ideas, then you should be opposed to the spread of Islam in America. Muslim society does not tolerate the free expression of ideas. Christianity enables a society to advance to the point where it can accept and support free debate. It shouldn’t be criminal to discuss or believe in Islam or to criticize Christianity, and even promulgate the view that Christianity is utterly false. But Muslims should be enticed to live in Islamic countries so that we can say whatever we wish about Islam — and Christianity — without having our throats slit. If we value free debate we do not value the institutions of an ideology that is opposed to free debate.

The ability to assimilate Muslims in any significant numbers in a free, non-Islamic society is the issue.

You write:

It seems to me that you don’t think that Christian values can survive or thrive in an open marketplace of ideas.

Civilization is never a pure marketplace of ideas. Human beings are not just intellectual. We evaluate ideas often in light of our desires and may rebel against the truth not because it is false but because it is not congenial or easy. We should uphold institutions that restrain objectively destructive desires, such as the desire to end the lives of infidels violently. To uphold laws that restrain destructive desires is not the same thing as forcing Christianity on unbelievers or refusing to subject it to open examination.

Strong Man writes:

So, is it okay in your mind to reject the constitution and allow the government to decide which religions are okay? If we want them to reject Muslims, what prevents them from rejecting Christians later?

Laura writes:

What “prevents them from rejecting Christians later?” Ideally, the crucial differences between Islam and Christianity would prevent them from rejecting Christians.

Again, Islam is not a religion only. It is a political ideology  — an ideology opposed to our Constitution.

Paul writes:

On some conservative websites, everyone is congratulating Peter King for his comments on surveillance of Muslim communities. But I have another take.

Terrorist Muslims coming from within the Muslim community are not “just like the mafia com[ing] from Italian communities.” Italians never supported the mafia or terrorism or murder. Muslims do support terrorism and murder. It is part of their religion, which calls for the death of infidels or, at a minimum, dhimmitude. Dhimmitude is the state of a non-Muslim in an Islamic state: inferiority, spoliation, and humiliation. King’s solution is necessary, but his tactic, and maybe even his character, is grotesque.

His tactic was not only to use a grotesque analogy but to use two faces, that is, to speak out of both sides of his mouth about the murder of Americans by our enemy, Islam. One face says we should not be politically correct, and the other face turns and speaks in a politically correct way by attempting to make modern Christians seem similar to modern Muslims. King should have said, “The solution is to repatriate all Muslims.”

Whether such a solution is practical right now is not a reason for silence. If you can’t name the devil, you can’t deal with him. Politicians like King are why we are where are today. Christians need to become informed about all this by following sites such as “The Thinking Housewife” and “View From the Right.”

 

APRIL 23, 2013

Marianne writes:

Strong Man writes, “So, is it okay in your mind to reject the constitution and allow the government to decide which religions are okay?  If we want them to reject Muslims, what prevents them from rejecting Christians later?”

Apparently at one time the United States had a provision in law called “Ideological Exclusion:” a means to exclude or remove noncitizens “espousing hatred and violence toward America.”  (Quotation from article, “Keeping Extremists Out:  the History of Ideological Exclusion and the Need for its Revival,” Center for Immigration Studies, 2005)

I have not yet found an update on the current status of Ideological Exclusion but I believe that is the relevant concept here.

Jay writes:

It appears that the victim of the carjacking was genuinely a victim, and not someone the Tsarnaev’s were going to meet. So scratch that. Even so, I am still baffled and intrigued as to why the Tsarnaev’s went to the MIT campus, after photographs of them were released in the Boston area.

As regards the unsolved murder, well, my imagination may be going into a little overdrive here, but is it at all possible that Tamerlan was practicing killing infidels? Throat-slitting is the preferred method of butchering kaffirs.

Finally, a word about presumption of innocence. Classmates of Dzhokhar saw the security photos and remarked upon the similarity between their friend, and the probable bomber. But they said nothing because their friend had to be innocent.

If they had presumed he was a suspect, they’d have called the authorities and Officer Collier would be alive today.