There is a narrative battle brewing between those who want to pretend radical Islam had nothing to do with the Boston bombings and those who want to focus solely on religion.
Things might be more nuanced than that. First, here is what we think we know (via Fox News): “A radical brand of Islam appears to have motivated the two brothers suspected of bombing the Boston Marathon, but investigators say they have found no indication the brothers were associated with any terrorist groups.”
Religion is clearly a part of the story, but maybe not the only part. What drove these young men to embrace a radical form of Islam at this point in their lives?
Their Chechnyan roots are an obvious place to begin. But this seems more like an explanation for why radical Islam was their preferred form of rebellion, than for why they were susceptible to its pernicious message. After all, the boy’s uncle, also a Chechnyan, called them, “losers.”
There has been lots of speculation. Was it alienation (as some have suggested)? — a desire to make a name for themselves — to be important? — or the desire to leave a legacy (even if it is to be remembered as a villain?) Are second generation immigrants (ironically) less likely to assimilate?
There are no excuses. The vast majority of young men never stoop to such horrific levels. But if we were profiling, gender and age seem to be common factors. This makes sense. Young men, especially, I think, are especially susceptible to revolutionary, exciting, or romantic appeals.
Despite the myth of apathy, we yearn to be called to some larger purpose. This seems counterintuitive, but asking people to sacrifice — to do something big — tends to make them more loyal to a cause (sadly, it often doesn’t matter if this larger purpose is noble — or murderous.)
A question worth considering: Does Western culture offer young men an equally thrilling alternative? Are we calling young men to sacrifice anything?
We’re more likely to tell appeal to them by promising we won’t demand too much of them.
This isn’t a new phenomenon. Many years ago, Douglas Hyde, a seasoned Communist who converted to Catholicism, wrote a book called, “Dedication and Leadership.” His goal was to teach Catholics how the Communists attracted support.
Here’s an excerpt:
“[Y]outh is a period of idealism. The communists attract them by appealing to that idealism, and they have been very successful
in this. Too often, I believe, we have failed to appeal to the idealism of youth, and we have failed to use it. And we are the losers.
… I have travelled in nearly every country of the world, and everywhere I have gone, I have found that young people are idealistic. I can only conclude that that is the way God wants them, and I do not believe that it is good sense, quite apart from charity or justice, to sneer at the idealism of youth. Young people will have their dreams; they will dream of a better world; they will want to change the world and if we have no patience with them or make them feel that this is some kind of infantile disease, they will still pursue their idealistic courses; they will do it outside the family instead of within it. (Emphasis mine.)
This is not to make excuses for a horrific act. But it is important to understand what might cause other Americanized young men to give up a life of relative middle class comfort — of wrestling matches and a house with a white picket fence — in favor of death or imprisonment in the future.
Religion is part of the story, but it’s not the only part.