http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2bRoh_bIrU
I agree with Cenk Uygur on this. (And why wouldn't I? He's the most reasonable man in America.) The percentage of radical Muslims is so low that you can't filter them out with profiling. In fact it's really not anyone's business if you're Muslim when you get on a plane, and if you are, you could always lie about it.
This is an important aspect of religion. Should religion be used as a way to evaluate someone's potential behavior patterns and motivations? Yes and no. From a social standing, yes. From a legal standing, not so much. Social and legal can correlate in that your particular religious behavior may appear as red flags to others, in which case we might need to take a look at you.
Simply being a member of a group who may have relations to something is not necessarily enough. Those relations need to be clear and direct, or else it depends on your own behavior. I.e., having a vague tie to radicalism in some way isn't very useful information, but espousing it yourself is definitely worth noting.
As much as I dislike religion, I like rights. Religion has a certain potential to destroy rights, whether it's a religion denying another religion, or a religion denying atheists, or atheists denying a religion. We must rise above it on principle. Of course, expecting Fox News to do that is like a poignant analogy involving another thing that irredeemably sucks.
When we don't know, we don't act, we investigate. This goes beyond the matter of profiling. Shots in the dark are rarely wise. Rather than trust religion, I choose to ask questions even if I can't always get a clear answer. I hope for the day when more people do the same.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment