Shouting "fire" in a crowded mosque is not free speech....

So why would it be freedom of religion?

Wretchard at the Belmont Club posted a very interesting response to David Warren:

One need only look at our cities, airports, and streets, at the schools with their security guards, even the systems of public transportation, not to mention the embassies, and the synagogues – to see the whole astonishing array of police and security services. The fact that the authorities everywhere refuse to name the evil does not negate that evil. Yet we know perfectly well that we have been under threat for a long time; one has only to open one’s eyes and our authorities know it better than any of us, because it is they who have ordered these very security measures. ... Today the war is everywhere. And yet the European Union and the states which comprise it, have denied that war’s reality, right up to the terrorist attack in Madrid of March 11, 2004.

But the problem with conceding the point to David Warren and Bat Y'eor is that it would cause a revolution in domestic and international politics, something neither the Democratic nor the Republican parties are prepared to do. Domestically it would mean that for the first time in American history, a major branch of a world religion would be declare a de facto enemy of the state. Not people, not a country; nothing with a capital unless it be Mecca, but a system of religious belief. It would strike at the very root of the American Constitutional system, the separation of Church and State. Internationally it would signify that the principal enemy host, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, whose ruling house is intimately connected and support this ideology, must be overthrown or changed. It would indicate that the Iraq campaign, which cost the Bush administration so much political capital, is not the end but the mere beginning.

One the most most important lessons of the Global War on Terror is how closely linked it is with Western domestic politics. The Madrid bombing of March 11, 2004 and the American Presidential elections are perfect examples. The reason for this is simple. Fighting the Jihadi enemy would mean overturning the 20th century political and economic foundations to their roots. It would mean disrupting the Big Tent of political correctness; putting a prosperity heavily dependent on oil supplies at risk; and replacing an entire paradigm of international relations. For that reason the act of naming Wahabi Islam as the principal enemy will evaded until it is absolutely unavoidable; until after a mushroom or biological cloud puts a period after the debate. The only exit from the madhouse that Warren and Y'eor describe is through the door we fear the most, the one which compels us to recognize the foe with no name. (Via Glenn Reynolds.)

How would recognizing the Jihadist movement as a direct enemy of the United States in any way respect an establishment of religion or prevent the free exercise thereof?

During the Cold War, there was little question that we were at war with Communism. At one point, Communists were considered enemy agents. Why are Islamofascists any different?

I suppose the argument could be made that interference with Jihadi suicide bombers constitutes preventing the free exercise of religion, but would such a claim be taken seriously if we prevented Aztec revival cultists from chopping out beating human hearts in a religious rite? Religious views are not a license to commit murder, or to mutilate the genitalia of young girls. Nor should they be a license to wage war.

Religious views should never allow enemies to get a pass, whether the battlefield is in Iraq, or at the airport metal detector.

In a must-read post (the best I have seen on this entire subject, in fact) Mark Steyn analyzes this mindset very eloquently, and correctly sees the problem as an inability to face ludicrously simple truths:

This story.....seems to confirm [] the sheer constraints under which an advanced western society can wage war in an age of political correctness. It’s not just the weediness of Norm Mineta but, as I note below, a broader unwillingness to speak the truth about who it is who’s trying to kill us. (Via Glenn Reynolds.)

"Thousands of Americans died because of ethnic squeamishness by Federal agencies."

Yet Steyn's conclusion is suprisingly optimistic:

[N]o one will ever hijack an American plane ever again - not because of idiotic confiscations of tweezers, but because of the brave passengers on the fourth flight. That's why the great British shoebomber had barely got the match to his sock before half the cabin pounded the crap out of him. Even the French. To expect the government to save you is to be a bystander in your own fate.

If I had to make up a hypothetical example, I couldn't come up with a better one than, say, a cougar ready to attack children near an elementary school. Let's try using the truth as a hypothetical example:

Police shot and killed a 108-pound mountain lion treed in the heart of Palo Alto on Monday, saying it posed an imminent threat to hundreds of children who were about to be released from two nearby schools.

The male cat, estimated to be 2 to 3 years old, sparked alarm after it was first reported by early-morning dog walkers and a delivery man around Rinconada Park -- less than a mile from Highway 101 and far from the foothills that the big cats normally call home.

....The animal "was a huge threat to public safety," and what would happen if a tranquilizer was used was just too unpredictable, said Palo Alto police Detective Kara Apple. "It was lunchtime for nearby elementary schools, and students were going to be getting out shortly.''

There are of course a number of reports of attacks by cougars (mountain lions). (Here's a nice roundup with a cool picture.)

But let's return to Palo Alto. According to Outdoor Life magazine, there's talk of erecting a shrine.

To the heroic police officers?

No! To the cougar, of course.

The police were evil, even comparable to the Americans at abu Ghraib:

A note next to a bouquet of roses read, “God bless your soul, dear Cougar.” Another: “I would gladly have given my life to save you.” A “call for justice” read, “African American man unjustly beaten. Mountain lion killed. (Police) Chief Lynn must go.” One writer stated that he was ashamed to be an American. First Abu Ghraib, then this.

Much as I'd hate to think that there's any connection between the kneejerk defenders of mountain lions and the kneejerk defenders of suicidal Islamofascists, I worry that there is. Psychologically, at least. I suspect that for some people, a deep-seated self hatred takes the form of sympathy for killers of humans, whether motivated by religion (or what we're supposed to give a pass as religion), by ordinary criminality, or simply by predatory animal instincts.

This might in turn be linked to hatred of those who defend themselves, but others have posted thoughts more articulate than mine. For example, Demosophia speculates about a confrontation:

between what I think is an outmoded and failed doctrine of irresponsibility and a new doctrine taking partial responsibility for one's own defense. The two doctrines ware sharply contrasted by the way different sets of airplane passengers handled a gang of hijackers on September 11, 2001. The only plane that was not used as a guided missile was the one in which citizens decided not to sit meekly in their seats waiting for the "authorities" to fix things.

As 911 recedes from public memory so too does the awareness of the failed doctrine that aided the hijackers in three of the four planes. And if openly carrying a firearm in a restaurant once in awhile helps, even at the margin, to remind people of that failure it's worth the hassle. (Via my blogfather Jeff.)

But what about those who praise the killers and attack those who believe in self defense?

What's the best defense?