15 The "History Test" and the Perils of Religious Profiling
Another political edition. Here's a fairly thorough summary of the content:
Like many others, I recently received an email which contained a "history test" which was intended to justify profiling on the basis of religious belief. After reminding us of 13 incidents over a 34-year time span that were perpetrated by "Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40", the email, attributed to one Ed Ruff, concluded:
"Nope... I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winning and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone lest they be guilty of profiling."
Mr. Ruff reveals that he doesn't fully understand the issues involved when he suggests that the only reason to oppose profiling is to "avoid offending anyone", and by suggesting that those who oppose racial or religion-based profiling want Muslim males between the ages of 17 and 40 to be "left alone". Both of these suggestions are incorrect: there is much more at stake here than offending people, and no one is proposing that Muslim males be exempt from search, only that they be treated like males of any other race or religion. Furthermore, "random" searches are not the only alternative to racial or religious profiling; one can have profiling strategies that are intelligent (e.g., based on behavior), yet are blind to religion (and race).
One should not be persuaded by Ed Ruff's "history test". For one thing, it is a very selective list of atrocities, with all but three of them occurring outside the US. The three that he lists that actually occurred in the US are: Bobby Kennedy's assassination (Why single out that one? Perhaps because if Mr. Ruff had included all high-profile assassinations and intended assassinations in the US since 1960, the statistics would have indicated that we should profile white non-Muslim males, not Muslim males, which is not the conclusion Mr. Ruff wants.), the 1993 WTC bombing (5 deaths), and the 2001 WTC attacks. If one looks solely at terrorist or extremist-related events that have occurred in the US, then yes, the 9/11 attack caused by far the greatest number of deaths. But that is followed by Tim McVeigh's bombing in Oklahoma City (168 deaths), attacks on abortion clinics by Christian (or professed Christian) fundamentalist extremists (7 Murders, 17 Attempted Murders, 41 Bombings, 168 Arsons, 82 Attempted Bombings/Arsons) and others -- e.g., the Unabomber (3 deaths, 18 wounded); David Koresh (professed Christian extremist, 74 deaths); etc. If you just look at is doing the actual terrorist or related killing in the US, you won't find many Muslim men. So why profile them?
I wonder how anyone would profile on the basis of religion, anyway? Would Muslims be required to wear an armband saying "Muslim" (ala Hitler's Germany) for easy identification, or would the profiling be done instead on the basis of race? In fact, a study has shown that at least in some cases, racial profiling can result in catching fewer criminals than not using racial profiling; so racial profiling just isn't good sense: it would let more terrorists through!
I think the worst aspect of religious profiling is that it is a form of unpatriotic discrimination, and is contrary to our God-given right of freedom of religion, enshrined in the constitution. If someone has committed crimes, then sure, lock him up, profile him, whatever; if he has expressed an intent to commit violence: ditto. But if we start discriminating against people purely for what religion they espouse, then we also will be the "enemies of freedom". And who knows: you might be "profiled" just because you happen to embrace a version of the religion that abortion clinic bombers do.
Support the troops: Defend democracy and freedom at home.
Podcast 15: The "History Test" and the Perils of Religious Profiling (32 min 51 sec @ 48kbps)
Like many others, I recently received an email which contained a "history test" which was intended to justify profiling on the basis of religious belief. After reminding us of 13 incidents over a 34-year time span that were perpetrated by "Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40", the email, attributed to one Ed Ruff, concluded:
"Nope... I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winning and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone lest they be guilty of profiling."
Mr. Ruff reveals that he doesn't fully understand the issues involved when he suggests that the only reason to oppose profiling is to "avoid offending anyone", and by suggesting that those who oppose racial or religion-based profiling want Muslim males between the ages of 17 and 40 to be "left alone". Both of these suggestions are incorrect: there is much more at stake here than offending people, and no one is proposing that Muslim males be exempt from search, only that they be treated like males of any other race or religion. Furthermore, "random" searches are not the only alternative to racial or religious profiling; one can have profiling strategies that are intelligent (e.g., based on behavior), yet are blind to religion (and race).
One should not be persuaded by Ed Ruff's "history test". For one thing, it is a very selective list of atrocities, with all but three of them occurring outside the US. The three that he lists that actually occurred in the US are: Bobby Kennedy's assassination (Why single out that one? Perhaps because if Mr. Ruff had included all high-profile assassinations and intended assassinations in the US since 1960, the statistics would have indicated that we should profile white non-Muslim males, not Muslim males, which is not the conclusion Mr. Ruff wants.), the 1993 WTC bombing (5 deaths), and the 2001 WTC attacks. If one looks solely at terrorist or extremist-related events that have occurred in the US, then yes, the 9/11 attack caused by far the greatest number of deaths. But that is followed by Tim McVeigh's bombing in Oklahoma City (168 deaths), attacks on abortion clinics by Christian (or professed Christian) fundamentalist extremists (7 Murders, 17 Attempted Murders, 41 Bombings, 168 Arsons, 82 Attempted Bombings/Arsons) and others -- e.g., the Unabomber (3 deaths, 18 wounded); David Koresh (professed Christian extremist, 74 deaths); etc. If you just look at is doing the actual terrorist or related killing in the US, you won't find many Muslim men. So why profile them?
I wonder how anyone would profile on the basis of religion, anyway? Would Muslims be required to wear an armband saying "Muslim" (ala Hitler's Germany) for easy identification, or would the profiling be done instead on the basis of race? In fact, a study has shown that at least in some cases, racial profiling can result in catching fewer criminals than not using racial profiling; so racial profiling just isn't good sense: it would let more terrorists through!
I think the worst aspect of religious profiling is that it is a form of unpatriotic discrimination, and is contrary to our God-given right of freedom of religion, enshrined in the constitution. If someone has committed crimes, then sure, lock him up, profile him, whatever; if he has expressed an intent to commit violence: ditto. But if we start discriminating against people purely for what religion they espouse, then we also will be the "enemies of freedom". And who knows: you might be "profiled" just because you happen to embrace a version of the religion that abortion clinic bombers do.
Support the troops: Defend democracy and freedom at home.
Podcast 15: The "History Test" and the Perils of Religious Profiling (32 min 51 sec @ 48kbps)
posted by Ron at 7:40 PM
Click to subscribe:
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home