In the aftermath of the Marathon bombings the "why" questions are once again swirling around the tempest in the Boston teapot. The allusion to Boston as a place of disputes over dissatisfaction with government is intentional. There is a critical distinction to be made, and there are undeniable similarities to be discovered. What follows must not be mistaken for a defense of what the Boston bombers did; it was a heinous act of cowardly treachery which can never be condoned under any circumstances.
Readers who are recent graduates of our public school system may not have heard of the Boston Tea Party. The reference is not to the 21st century political movement, but to an evening of civil disobedience perpetrated in 1773 just prior to the Revolutionary War with England by people called Patriots who were upset over the King's tax policies pertaining to the American colonies. Dumping the cargo of tea into the harbor would be tantamount to closing every Starbucks across the entire nation. Depriving the merchants of their expected revenue and the citizens of their daily stimulant was a cause for serious concern. In other words, the Patriots made their point loud and clear.
Similarly, the Boston bombers made quite a splash, albeit a deadly and (again) inexcusable one. Whereas last week's bombers used violence as their first move, it was the British who precipitated the bloodshed that led to the costly Revolutionary War. Crown troops fired on civilian protesters in 1770 in what has become known as the Boston Masacre and later on an April morning in 1775 it was again the British from Boston who fired the "shot heard 'round the world" and began the war in earnest. It may be putting too fine a point on it to say that the Patriots were simply acting in self defense; after all, the government was merely trying to collect duly levied taxes on commercial goods. The fact remains, the protesters were in a defensive posture, not offensive (in both senses of the term.)
So much for the distinction; now to the similarities. It is assumed at this point that the Boston bombers were radical Islamist sympathizers. As such they are a powerless minority chafing under what they consider to be an immoral and oppressive regime against which duty calls them to rage. Likewise the Patriots had exhausted their rights of legal protest under the British monarchy and resorted to civil disobedience as a form of unlawful protest. They were equally powerless (in their eyes at least at first) against the military and commercial global superpower which was England. It is pure speculation, but it would seem likely that on that fateful evening in 1770, someone probably suggested burning the ships in the harbor as opposed to just dumping the cargo. The salient point is that no such violent protest occurred.
The history lesson might continue by remembering the actions of a Medieval Roman Catholic Church which slaughtered Islamic radicals who were pushing their way deeper and deeper into European territory. The Crusades, as they were called, were a form of "Christian" jihad: violence against infidels. Then there is the violence perpetrated by the Inquisition where heretics were tortured mercilessly and burned at the stake. It was the church which was responsible for witch trials at which violence was done in the name of God. All of this church sponsored mayhem has been soundly and correctly criticized and disowned by modern Christian apologists as unworthy of believers in any age.
It may be nothing more than a curiosity, but it is interesting that both Christianity and Islam were about thirteen centuries old when their theology broke out in violence. To be sure, Mohamed himself supported violence against those who opposed him, but there have been a dozen intervening centuries during which Islam has been spreading more or less peacefully. It is the 20th century Wahhabi theological branch and their political arm, Al-Qaeda, that seem to have rekindled the flame of jihad in our generation. Perhaps the Sufi or another more peaceful sub-set of Muslims will take precedence in the next generation and quell the radical jihadists. Supposedly, the radicals make up only ten percent of all followers of Mohamed.
Americans must hear the cry behind the sound of the Boston bomb; not to condone it, but to understand it. There is a broad segment of today's progressive movement (some but not all Democrats) who lobby constantly for near universal tolerance. There are even those who call themselves Christians who are attempting to syncretize Islam and Christianity. It may not be politically correct to say so, but there are some things that must not be tolerated. There are some beliefs that cannot coexist within the framework of American society as we know it. The attempt to embrace radical Islam or appease their demands is tantamount to cradling fire in one's vest. I think Americans understood that on September 12, 2001. Perhaps the boom in Boston reminds us again.
No comments:
Post a Comment