Yet, in a situation dealing with Islamic extremists, is there something more important than an individuals feelings on the collective bus? Targeted intelligence-gathering at mosques and in local Muslim communities, for example, makes perfect sense when we are at war with these extremists that seem to have many of the same qualities over and over again.
I think the question that begs to be answered is this: would I, as a white male, mind being searched more often than other individuals if it meant saving lives? I can't totally place myself in the shoes of someone of another race, but if I saw, continually, people of my nationality or region perpetrating these jihadist acts of terror, I might be angered but I would have to look at the bigger picture.
Quick relevant sidebar: If a police officer came up to me and said, "You fit the profile of a drug dealer", What would my options be? Well, let's think this through. If I was a drug dealer, I might be nervous because I was doing something wrong. If all the drugs were in my car or apartment, I'd be really nervous if the cops wanted to search the vehicle/premises. If I wasn't, why would I stop them from going about their business? I have nothing to hide, and nothing to lose but my time (an inconvenience, no doubt). This is obviously an oversimplification, and one that will garner rebuttal, but it goes towards my point.
Islamic extremism is not based off of hatred or misunderstanding of another person because of their skin color. Last time I checked, the planes hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with all colors of people inside. It is a religious fanaticism that contains scripture calling for the death of any person not willing to convert. Talk about your ultimate stage of intolerance. Boy. A little bit more extreme than a racial slur, indeed.
Many agents of our government have been called out for searching mosques for links to terrorist groups. Where are they supposed to look? Quaker neighborhoods? Elks Lodge meetings? My mom's garden club? There are some realities that cannot be ignored.
To clarify: I don't walk around daily avoiding people of Middle Eastern decent. It's not in my makeup. I have to hope that humanity is good (regardless of all of the evidence on my TV screen pointing at the opposite). Yet for me to sit back and disregard bold trends would denote grave irresponsibility to the millions of Americans I would like to say I am united.
As we grow together more as a whole (which I hope understanding and tolerance will cultivate), I think this dangerous world that the few ruin for the many requires almost thicker skin. Though this may be perceived conflicting, or an oxymoron to some, it makes sense. Most people aren't bad, but there are those who are, and they match certain criteria. Therefore, for the safety of all, it might require discomfort for a few.
I may be called out for being insensitive. But I'd rather be insensitive than dead. I'll drink a cold one with all of my friends now. Of all colors, shapes, and sizes.
On a somewhat related note: looks like some of the "finer citizens" of Guantanamo picked up a hankering to be in the movies while in jail. Or they were actually bad people. You decide. I'm just glad they're free! Click below for more on this new star!
And to brighten everybody's day! Look at what the new numb skull in the White House did! Did anyone make fun of him viciously and with no remorse for this blatant act of stupidity? Nope. Oh well. The honeymoon continues...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4387606/Barack-Obama-mistakes-window-for-door-at-White-House.html
The stereotyping for public safety is an interesting debate. Obviously, you have to profile a type of person who would be willing to commit these types of actions. But how far do you go? Its very similar to the Guantanamo question. At what point do we sacrifice the rights we stand for? There is a reason we have the 1st, 4th, 6th, and 14th Amendments.
ReplyDelete"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Ben Franklin
It's certainly a difficult subject that should not be taken lightly. It requires serious inquiry. I think the greatest sin is just accepting it without weighing the consequences. Too many Americans accept what they're spoon fed daily.
ReplyDeleteI would have to look long and hard at Franklin's era. Was there the kind of fanatacism we see now towards cultures based on liberty and freedom? Most of their lives, the founding fathers were trying to remove the yolk of oppression (obviously influencing their points of view on liberty). Are the roles reversed? Do we simply take it for granted after so many years of dominance?
Excersize: Compare Great Britain to the colonies. Then look at the present U.S. of A. and terrorist factions around the globe. Both at odds. Are there similarities between the conflicts? I find it hard to draw a solid correlation...
And there is a good chance that Franklin was babbling from a syphilis induced episode at the time of that quote. He did have a penchance for French Prostitutes (I kid, I kid. An inspirational phrase, if somewhat of an ultimatum?).
I think religious fanaticism has always been a problem. I'll skip the Crusades and go straight to Renaissance Europe. Western Europe, starting with Martin Luther and his theses, was torn up by religious fanatics: 30 years War, Huguenots in France, the Spanish Inquisition (nobody suspects them), Bloody Mary in England, etc.
ReplyDeleteThat's what makes America/the Constitution so unique and important to this day. Our government is not supposed to take sides in these disputes. According to the Framers, government is meant to protect all citizens, regardless of their beliefs.
Solid points indeed.
ReplyDeleteAre you a person who believes we should stick to the Constitution verbatim and take it as is or do you feel it is a living document that needs to be interpreted to our times?
This example is not related but in the loosest sense, but when our Founding Fathers wrote that every citizen had the right to bear arms, were they taking into account the devastation high powered sub-machine guns could do? Probably not. A musket required a slightly more measured approach. Our world is not a musket. It's a high powered weapon.
The freedom to believe what you want to believe is fundamental to our country. That's why, as you say, it is unique. Yet militant Islam is this uniqueness' mortal enemy, sworn over and over again in videos (followed soon after by a beheading).
We should protect those who are innocent. Sadly, we have to find that out somehow. And it turns out these people congregate and interact in certain places and in certain fashions.
I think, as much as the Founding Fathers loved our country and its ideals, the sight of those towers falling (full of all types of people) would have rocked them as hard as it did us.
We live in such a fast and dangerous world these days. Back then, at least the British had to sail across the ocean before they attacked. That took longer than a fortnight...
If the new administration is not vigilant and takes a lackluster approach to the world and its threats, I fear for our safety. I can't help but be realistic with the things I read.
I agree that we must be vigilant and proactive in our defense. However, there must be some rights which are immutable. If we allow our government to spy on us without cause (Patriot Act) or we deny people trials (even terror suspects) we flip off everything we stand for.
ReplyDeleteYour right. The world is different. But most of those ideas endure today. Its a delicate balance and a question that will be posed over and over again. I just hope we think long and hard about the consequences of our actions.