Suppose we set up a thought experiment. Suppose that in the aftermath of the Brussels attack (and all the attacks before that), someone conducted a survey of Christians in North America and discovered that seventy percent of them thought that their Muslim neighbors were “much more likely” to have terrorist sympathies. This would be reported as a bigotry problem among the Christians, and not an instance of how insightful they were being.
If a survey were taken of Muslims, and seventy percent of them reported that they had “experienced discrimination” from Christians in some way, shape or form, this would be taken at face value, another evidence of a bigotry problem among the Christians.
The way such judgments break is not really telling us what Christians in this society are like, but it is telling us which group in this society is “justified” and which group is not. This is simply “heads I win, tails you lose” writ large.
Moral judgments are part of the human operating system. We cannot function without them, and they are so integral to our thought processes that we are frequently unaware of them. Fish don’t know they are wet, in other words. Because we are a fallen race, our moral judgments are frequently inaccurate or wrong, but we still make them. All the time. And when it comes to public morality, which refers to how we should behave in large groups, we generalize. We necessarily generalize.
When there is a large population containing members of different races and religions, and we start dealing with the inevitable frictions that will arise between those groups, there will be an enormous pressure to have the official policy favor one group over against the other. When we have to count a huge number of people, we would much rather count by tens or hundreds than by ones. But justice requires we count by ones.
But by justice, I am referring only to the processes of an individual trial. Nobody should ever be convicted of a terrorist bombing simply because his name is Muhammad. Nobody should be shipped off to Guantanamo because of the country his grandparents emigrated from.
At the same time — and this is the kicker — we are so delusional that we want absolute even-handedness to be extended to every stage of the investigation, and this is where we run ourselves into absurdities.
Suppose we have a bombing in the Dearborn area, similar to the Brussels attack. Let us assume that an ISIS flag is found at the scene. For this thought experiment, let us assume that the police did not have to deal with political correctness in the investigation at all. They decided to question every person in the area named Muhammad, and they worked through that list methodically. Let us also assume that somebody in the department decided to establish a control group, and so they also questioned everybody named Sven. Now who doubts that that the first set of interviews would be much more productive?
Yes, but that’s profiling. Right. Another name for it is police work. Our (dangerous) political correctness does not prevent good police departments from profiling in an important investigation, but it does require them to pretend not to have done so. We have mandated hypocrisy, which is why a few Svens are thrown into the line-up.
One last comment. Every reasonable person ought cheerfully to grant that there is a vast different between a non-radicalized guy named Muhammad, and another guy named Muhammad who has all kinds of unsavory sympathies. But how are we to tell the difference between them? There is one simple test, actually. The non-radicalized Muhammad would understand fully why he was being questioned, and wouldn’t resent it at all.
…..and in so doing would prove to be far more at risk than Sven who did the same. It would benefit us to both expect good police work, and understand the average Muhammad is more afraid and more threatened by the radicalized Muhammad than all seven Sven’s.
“The non-radicalized Muhammad would understand fully why he was being questioned, and wouldn’t resent it at all.” This is a thought I agree with. The problem I have with it, well I suppose it’s more of a nagging discomfort in the back of my mind, is that it sounds so similar to the “if you aren’t guilty then you should have no problem with us searching your home” argument. This common sense approach can, within the time frame of a twinkling eye, be used to establish the practical overthrow of the fourth amendment.
I tend to agree with you. I am a rather non threatening Christian and I actually resent the heck out of having my motives questioned, body searches at the airport, scanners, eaves dropping on email and phone calls, drug testing at work, these things are all violations. They imply one is guilty until innocence is proven. Although perhaps I resent it because I am not the foreigner, I am not the one who belongs to a group that wishes us harm, I can see no logic in harassing Christians grandmas at an airport for example, as if there is any… Read more »
When put to the test, language about “rights” and “liberties” disappears and the instinctive insistence of “us before them” grips the conservative as strongly as the liberal. In my mind, Cruz lost any constitutional credibility with his willingness to double down on this proposal. Doug simply abandoned consistency as soon as it came to “rights for the other guys.”
“Doug simply abandoned consistency as soon as it came to “rights for the other guys.”
Well, I think perhaps he is right however. Who should have “more rights,” those who embrace Christian values or those who believe they must slaughter innocents to appeal to their god? Call me unjust, irrational, and inconsistent if you wish, but some rights are simply superior to others and the Lord of all Common Sense does ask us to recognize this once in a while.
I have some thoughts to share, but am limited by bandwidth and technology. Would it be possible to mail in a response and have someone post it manually?
Google played an April fools joke similar to that one time. I think it was called Google Paper.
Doug is assuming that criminal justice in North America works under the assumption of political correctness.
And going on another thought experiment, if a crime was comitted by a man named Doug, I very much doubt would be happy and willing to go to trial, face advanced interrogation or generally assumed he is a criminal.
Whereas guys named tony like committing crimes?
Like being interrogated?
Like being tried?
And like being convicted criminals?
Tony, your “thought experiment” needs more thought, tiger.????
What bearing does what you wrote have on anything?
Please think through what you want to write before you reply….saves confusion
“Imitation is a kind of artless Flattery.” ; – )
So just blind dismissal and veiled insuts….ok……thought there would be an intelligent rebuttal there, but hey, whatever floas your boat….
Somehow, I remain nominally hopeful that you will develop more of a sense of humor.
I get that it might take a while.
While not original, I did think the quote rebuttal was pretty intelligent!
; – )
At least we know you are not actually confused about some parts of this dialogue!
Forgive me, but I always took a comment section on a post like this as a way to have a thoughtful, intellegent dscussion over the subject matter at hand (although some I have had to deal with on this website have been far from thoughtful or intelegent) : (
“The problem with having a sense of humor is often that people you use it on aren’t in a very good mood.” Lou Holtz
“A person without a sense of humor is like a wagon without springs. It’s jolted by every pebble on the road.” Henry Ward Beecher
“structural equation models showed that general and verbal intelligence both predict humor production ability” – and, moreover, this relationship goes onto predict mating success, as well.”
Greengross and Miller
Just a suggestion…………you may want to pass direct those quotes at some of the others in these post…….not a very humorous bunch commenting here….
In the future, let’s both do that and see how many yucks we can genetate.
It would make some of these conversations more enjoyable, and is some cases more tolerable…
“although some I have had to deal with on this website have been far from thoughtful or intelegent”
Welcome to the internet ;-)
While I would never win a spelling bee myself, Tony spelled ” intelligent” right the first time, but not the second time!? Maybe he is developing a sense of humor !?????????
Caulk that up to using an iPad and writing quickly…..
I too have misspelled that word! An error rich in irony, and of course pretty funny!
“Doug is assuming that criminal justice in North America works under the assumption of political correctness.”
“Our (dangerous) political correctness does not prevent good police departments from profiling in an important investigation, but it does require them to pretend not to have done so.”
The police have to deal with polotics which means they have to at least put up a pretence of political correctness.
Justice in very basic terms is apprehending and convicting those who have comitted crimes. Crime prevention is doing practical things to stop or limit crime. No doubt profiling happens, but profiling (as many describe it) does not help solving cases nor does it help crime prevention, it hinders it. And other than using “politically correct” language, what examples are there of poltical correctness hindering crime preention and justice? Doug`s argument is basically it is fine to question all the muslims even if there are no ties to extreemest groups and that muslims should be ok with that and if they… Read more »
“Justice in very basic terms is apprehending and convicting those who have comitted crimes. Crime prevention is doing practical things to stop or limit crime.” That’s criminal justice, Justice in general is broader in scope. “No doubt profiling happens, but profiling (as many describe it) does not help solving cases nor does it help crime prevention, it hinders it.” Proper profileling is merely inductive reasoning. “And other than using “politically correct” language, what examples are there of poltical correctness hindering crime preention and justice?” Any bias can perevrt justice. “Doug`s argument is basically it is fine to question all the… Read more »
“That’s criminal justice, Justice in general is broader in scope.” -and obviously I was refering to criminal justice-nowhere in the context of this post has there been mention of helping the poor or dealing with racism…. “Proper profileling is merely inductive reasoning.” -and things like justice and crime prevention are based based on facts, proof and evidence, and not a hunch…. “Any bias can perevrt justice” -are you seriously stating that not using the “N” word when refering to an african american suspect or victim is a bias? “Only if ‘all muslims’ is the profile for Daesh.” -please elaborate on… Read more »
“-and things like justice and crime prevention are based based on facts, proof and evidence, and not a hunch….” Yes, but in the absence of evidence a hunch can point you in the right direction. “-are you seriously stating that not using the “N” word when refering to an african american suspect or victim is a bias?” No, a fear of causing offence is a bias. “-please elaborate on this” If you’re looking for a person involved in a terrorist attack I consider ‘all muslims’ too broad of a profile to be usefull, it gives you a needle in a… Read more »
“Yes, but in the absence of evidence a hunch can point you in the right direction.” -even in a case where there is a lack of evidence (which is incredibly rare) a hunch rarely if ever helps……stop watching so many crime dramas,…… “No, a fear of causing offence is a bias.” -yeah, because many police forces in the states are afraid of offending the African American or Muslim communities by arresting them, either justifiably so or not….. “If you’re looking for a person involved in a terrorist attack I consider ‘all muslims’ too broad of a profile to be usefull,… Read more »
“-even in a case where there is a lack of evidence (which is incredibly rare) a hunch rarely if ever helps……stop watching so many crime dramas,……” Which is why I initally said indnctive reasoning. “-yeah, because many police forces in the states are afraid of offending the African American or Muslim communities by arresting them, either justifiably so or not…..” Should they be? What would happen if a police force biased against African Americans admited to it? “-or you can use all the modern tools crime enforcement agencies have at their disposal ….” Tools for going through a haystsck do… Read more »
“What would happen if a police force biased against African Americans admited to it?”
This is the data we have to go on. Never seen someone just “admit it” though – it always has to be exposed.
“Which is why I initally said indnctive reasoning.” -But inductive reasoning is useless unless you have hard evidence. It would be a miscarage of justice if someone is arrested because “”It seems like he did it” when there is no burden of proof. And, our reasoning can be flawed and biased. “Should they be? What would happen if a police force biased against African Americans admited to it?” -That was a sarcastic comment……many places in the States there have been instances of unfair arrests of minorities, as well as good police forces base arrests on evidence. Neither group is all… Read more »
“-But inductive reasoning is useless unless you have hard evidence. It would be a miscarage of justice if someone is arrested because “”It seems like he did it” when there is no burden of proof. And, our reasoning can be flawed and biased.” Absolutely. “-That was a sarcastic comment……” I’m aware of that. “Actually they do…they eiminate or minimize false leads, wild goose chases and human bias. -And that wasn`t even the sense Doug was using it….” Doug said a dsesh attack is more likely to be carried out by a Mohamed than a Sven, therefore questioning Mohameds is more… Read more »
“Absolutely” -to which profiling based on race or religion is not based on hard evidence, which Doug is ok with…….. “Doug said a dsesh attack is more likely to be carried out by a Mohamed than a Sven, therefore questioning Mohameds is more likely to be productive than questioning Svens. Which is true as far as it goes.” -this circles to the same problem. Singling out an entire religion or race based on “it seems like they are the ones that would do it” doesn’t lead to justice. Once there is hard evidence to confidently state “we are looking for… Read more »
“-this circles to the same problem. Singling out an entire religion or race based on “it seems like they are the ones that would do it” doesn’t lead to justice. Once there is hard evidence to confidently state “we are looking for a (fill in the blank), than that singling out is a miscarriage of justice…”
Within the confines of Dougs hypothetical you are argueing thst there is no valid reason to suspect the terrorist attacks in brussles were carried out by muslims. Or even Daesh who claimed responssbility.
Doug’s hypothetical is “No Muslim should be upset if they are targeted simply because they are Muslim even if there is nothing’s substantial to link them to the crimes”. A Muslim should not be interrogated simply because they have the same religion as those who comitted the crime. It would be similar if I was interrogated for a rash of killings simply because I was white, even though the murders were committed in towns two hours away that I have never been to. If there is collaborating evidence that links a specific person to a crime, that is Justice. What… Read more »
His hypothetical speifically linked muslims to the crimes, which would be invesigsted by police in the area talking to people in the area.
Now you think Doug wants all muslims rounded up for the brussles attacks?
“His hypothetical speifically linked muslims to the crimes, which would be invesigsted by police in the area talking to people in the area.” -His hypothetical also states (or at the very best implies) that is completely acceptable to question, detain, etc., someone who`s sole connection to a crime is race or religion. When there is evidence or reasonable suspicion, then it is not profiling. “Now you think Doug wants all muslims rounded up for the brussles attacks?” -It seems he would have no problem with that, but with much of what Doug writes, he talkes out of both sides of… Read more »
“When there is evidence or reasonable suspicion, then it is not profiling.”
Profileing: the use of personal characteristics or behavior patterns to make generalizations about a person
If is reasonable to assume the terrorists in the brussles attacks were muslims, that is profileing.
“-It seems he would have no problem with that, but with much of what Doug writes, he talkes out of both sides of his mouth…”
Again with the assertion that Doug is incapable of being honest…
“If is reasonable to assume the terrorists in the brussles attacks were muslims, that is profileing.” -But you don`t assume every muslim should be questioned b virtue of their religion especially when there is no evidence that they participted in the said crime. A muslim who had nothing to do with a crime should not be treated as if he comitted the crime or was an accomplice when there is no evidence linking them to the crime. By your logic, it is only reasonable to interogate all white men with no evidence because a white guy comitted a crime. “Again… Read more »
“By your logic, it is only reasonable to interogate all white men with no evidence because a white guy comitted a crime.”
Depending on what you mean by interogate and in a limited geographic area that is reasonable.
“-I would say not forthright with what he truely believes and disingenuous”
ie. incapable of being honest.
“but it`s pretty clear in his writings. I am asserting nothing….”
You assert that Doug is disingenuous.
“Depending on what you mean by interogate and in a limited geographic area that is reasonable.”
-In the context of investigations, interrogation usually implies someone being a suspect. When the only evidence is a shared race or religion, then it is not only wrong but unproductive.
“incapable of being honest.”
-that is not all the same as incappable of being honest.
“-In the context of investigations, interrogation usually implies someone being a suspect. When the only evidence is a shared race or religion, then it is not only wrong but unproductive.”
I was talking about questioning potential suspects.
“-that is not all the same as incappable of being honest.”
Not in the sense of making factual ststements. But you accuse Doug of ‘talking out of both sides of his mouth’ on enough topics… is there any thing you think Doug is genuine about?
“I was talking about questioning potential suspects.” -That is not profiling and NOT what Doug is advocating……if by potential suspects you mean there is evidence to link then to a crime other than race, religion or some other generality. “Not in the sense of making factual ststements. But you accuse Doug of ‘talking out of both sides of his mouth’ on enough topics… is there any thing you think Doug is genuine about?” -there is actually a big difference. I don`t know the man personally, and I assume in many other areas he is candid and forthright and clear. In… Read more »
It seems as if you are conflating profiling, and detention. I used this example once before: “If you are looking for elephants, you are not likely to find them by looking in the sugar bowl.” When your opponent possesses a specific characteristic, ignoring that characteristic in your investigation would be idiotic. Focusing upon the specific target group is only reasonable. Investigating does not necessarily include detaining someone, and usually does not unless and until the investigator(s) possesses sufficient information to effect an arrest. Generally, you do not want to tip off the opponent that he/they are being watched. As a… Read more »
On Cruz’s comment about police patrolling and securing muslim neighborhoods, it’s reveals his lack of commitment to the Constitution. I did support him. Now I may reconsider. His view that implementing such a strategy before they become radicalized is idiotic. Such a strategy would encourage radicalization.
Nope. You’re wrong. Beck already said that Cruz and the Utah Mormon “priesthood” are the fulfillment of Joseph Smith’s prophecy to protect the Constitution!
Except that there was a guy named Sven who was an Islamist radical and was arrested in Germany last year.
Sven Lau is his name and a quick search brings up the headlines.
Okay, that’s a serious issue, but it’s also hilarious.
Points out that it’s really, really easy for “profiling” to point you in the wrong direction. Maybe if police work was based on the completely random lineup of suspects, you’d have some justification. But it’s not…and it seems like if you start habitually ignoring the Sven’s in the crowd (while rounding up and pissing off a lot of Mohammad’s who haven’t actually done anything), that’s probably where it will cost you.
Suppose we have a shooting in the Atlanta area, similar to the Charleston attack. Let us assume that a confederate flag is found at the scene. For this thought experiment, let us assume that the police did not have to deal with political correctness in the investigation at all. They decided to question every person in the area displaying a confederate flag, and they worked through that list methodically. Let us also assume that somebody in the department decided to establish a control group, and so they also questioned everybody named Singh. Now who doubts that that the first set… Read more »
I like the point you are making, and it is essentially the same point everyone else is making. The only thing you are lacking is a world where people displaying “stars and bars” regularly attack people in that manner. This is what it ultimately comes down too. When we survey the array of terrorist attacks around the world, it is objectively and overtly primarily muslims who are doing them.
Gotcha, and I totally agree with your last sentence. I guess where I differ from many in this comment thread is that I’m against ceding the 4th Amendment rights of a segment of U.S. citizens (Muslim Americans or Confederate-proud Americans) based on the the actions of a few (be they Islamic terrorists who blow up airports or Confederate-proud terrorists who shoot up churches).
Wow, for shame.
Tip-toe, dodgy-dodgy. Just come out and say it – you approve Ted Cruz, and while you don’t have the guts to approve a proposal to “patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized,” you’ll approve it in the closet and subtly signal that to the other people who approve it. You can’t explicitly say it, without being called out for it, but you’ll implicitly defend the guy who will say it. Again, for shame.
For someone who talks a highflown line about freedoms, rights, and reduced government, this should be an embarrassing level of hypocrisy.
Okay, Doug. Nice thought experiment. Do you have any evidence that shows that the police are not allowed to question people with connections to extremist Muslim groups, that they aren’t currently monitoring certain individuals? Is there evidence of a criminal act perpetrated by Muslim extremists in the US in which the authorities did NOT question relevant parties or investigate all possible leads based on a desire to be politically correct? Let’s look at evidence, not thought experiments. As to your example, if a bomb went off in Dearborn, let’s use another example. If a bomb goes off in Dearborn and… Read more »
Apparently Pittard has never heard of the TSA.
Of course, if whites would simply laugh off the accusations and insults, instead of getting all beta and apologetic, then this would all end in a heartbeat.
It’s only a matter of time. Though the longer it’s delayed, the more severe the pushback will be.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn5-CFkhXrc German Americans were also interned. The government barely acknowledges it
It’s time to acknowledge that “religious freedom” is not a Christian principle. There’s no reason Muslims have to be allowed to live in Christian countries.
But the states isn’t a Christian country……
It doesn’t have a Christian government, to be sure. But that’s a different issue.
The constitution guarantees religious freedom.
One of the several reasons to reject the Constitution.
so, reject the very thing that gives you the freedom to bash it, and gives u freedom to worship however you choose…….The kind of society you are advocating and the kind of society ISIS advocates sound pretty similar….
Better not let the Americans here hear you saying the Constitution “gives freedom”. :-)
The crazy thing is, most americans believe that…and they`d be right….
So “rights” are not inherent but can be changed or removed with the regime?
Please explain the point you are trying to make..
Most people who defend the Constitution are also quick to point out that the Constitution doesn’t give rights but only recognizes rights that are inherent, given by their Creator. So, the Constitution doesn’t give ashv the freedom to bash it [the Constitution] or give ashv the freedom to worship however he chooses–it only recognizes those rights as being inalienable since they come from the Creator. However, you’re saying that the Constitution gives those freedoms, those “rights,” which means that those are not static, everlasting things, but rather fashions that can be changed as a garment with the changing of the… Read more »
I am partly tracking with you. Whether we call it “the constitution grants freedoms” or “the constitution recognizes freedoms”, is at some level arbitrary. The point I was making was that ashv could only say what he says because he lives in a society where you have the freedom to express those views. And I do agree with we having a duty to serve God (I guess depending on which theological tradition you are interpriting that through). It is very true that all humanity has a duty to serve God, but sin impedes us. But that is talking about apples… Read more »
Well, ashv could say whatever he wants about the government no matter what the form of government is–“freedom” hasn’t a thing to do with that. He could be in North Korea and talk all the trash he wants about lil’ Kim. Lil’ Kim may throw him in a work camp, which is what you’re talking about, but that doesn’t change what ashv can or cannot do, which is my point about having a duty to worship the LORD–worshiping the LORD does not depend upon “religious freedoms,” but is rather a duty that doesn’t change with the regime. And again, I’m… Read more »
“Well, ashv could say whatever he wants about the government no matter what the form of government is–“freedom” hasn’t a thing to do with that. He could be in North Korea and talk all the trash he wants about lil’ Kim. Lil’ Kim may throw him in a work camp, which is what you’re talking about, but that doesn’t change what ashv can or cannot do, which is my point about having a duty to worship the LORD–worshiping the LORD does not depend upon “religious freedoms,” but is rather a duty that doesn’t change with the regime.” -that is not… Read more »
Religious freedom is not a Christian moral principle. As creatures in His image, we are morally bound and obligated to honor the one true God, and no other. However, enforcement of this moral principle is not given to the Church (outside its covenant family jurisdiction) or to the State. This means there is a Christian civic principle of religious freedom and tolerance, so long as those other religious observances don’t violate criminal law. The civic magistrate is only authorized to address criminal matters, and is not authorized to exterminate or banish simply for being a Jew, or atheist, or Muslim,… Read more »
The civil magistrate IS to enforce the first table of the law. The CM has been given the sword by its Lord Jesus to punish evil doers, which provides for an orderly and just civil realm SO THAT the Great Commission can proceed. An orderly and just civil realm is simply not possible outside the bounds of Christianity. Just as Christianity alone provides the pre-conditions for rational thought, so it too provides the only civil conditions for the Great Commission to be accomplished.
How is Singapore a disorderly or unjust civil regime? How is Confucianism unable to produce the preconditions for rational thought?
If the civil regime of Singapore is just and orderly then that just”ness” and orderliness rest on a Christian foundation, whether acknowledged or not. The reason is that “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are deposited in Christ.” (Colossians 2:3). This includes any and all wisdom and knowledge necessary to exist in this world, from the planting of a peach tree to the just and orderly ruling of a nation. That wisdom and knowledge is not, therefore, deposited in Confucius. Any rational thought is based on the wisdom and knowledge deposited in Christ and no rational thought exists outside… Read more »
It’s best to look at a culture based on what god they worship, and remember: we become like the god we worship.
A Moslem, or other Unitarian religion yields an authoritarian, monolithic culture with little diversion from the ‘norm’. Creativity is discouraged and progress is limited.
A Hindu or polytheistic religion yields a culture in which chaos reigns, with no strong leaders, or rules. Progress is also limited because the future is so unsettled and laws are unenforceable.
A biblical Trinitarian religion can flourish because both creativity and stability are equally promoted and protected.
And which is Singapore?
I’m not an authority on Singapore, but I would suspect it to be a heavily authoritarian government presiding over a teeming mass of diversity, or a virtual powder keg. It appears to work because it has elements of unity and diversity, but in an opposing tension rather than complimentary harmony.
In what way do you think it doesn’t work?
It does appear to work, but the failure would show up in the loss of freedom for the citizens. Civil government should protect freedoms, not inhibit them.
Example: I believe gum chewing is prohibited in Singapore – but they have clean streets!
Not every population or era is suited to freedom. Why is being able to chew gum more important than having clean streets?
The goal of progressive politics is liberty along with personal responsibility. Only Christianity works toward that goal, and future liberties should increase with time. A state, overburdened with rules and regulations, is oppressive.
My thinking is that we have reached the maximum freedom is when the civil govt uses only the 10 commandments as their laws.
Progressive politics is a murderous false god. I generally agree that liberty should correspond with personal responsibility — but the mistake of liberalism is believing that everyone has the same capacity for personal responsibility.
Not even Israel used only the 10 commandments as their laws.
I don’t mean progressive in the liberal sense!
Israel did fail, but the goal remains.
What other sense is there?
After you have established a government on the 10 commandments alone, will you proceed to establish a church with the Bible’s table of contents as its only creed?
Toward a Christian civilization is the true sense.
New church: Jesus already did this.
Two thousand years of Church teaching disagrees with you.
True. It may take another 200 years before they figure it out!
Economically Singapore is a lot more free than the U.S. in many ways. They encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. They’re just really strict on certain things. http://www.heritage.org/index/
Religious tolerance is reasonable and has a long respectable history in Christendom. But that’s a different sort of thing entirely from “religious freedom”.
Would you explain the difference between the two, please?
A Christian government that shows religious toleration would, for example, enforce blasphemy laws and require government officials to adhere to a confession of faith, but otherwise allow pagans and heretics to live unmolested. The modern concept of ‘religious freedom’ doesn’t admit to the possibility of either requirement.
I know 5 people named Mohammed very well, who would resent your profiling and I wouldn’t blame them. I’m also tired of political correctness but I don’t understand your illustration at all.
I’m really lost as to what the controversy is. If I crime has potential to be committed or has been committed, and the suspects are described as having certain features, there is every reason to begin looking among such people. This is a far cry removed from illegal search and seizure. If an officer receives various solid reports that there is heavy drug trade in a certain section of queens and they put more presence there with eyes looking to catch it, no one’s rights have been violated in any real sense of inalienable rights. When a news report comes… Read more »
Maybe if you lived in say, India, and you heard the Indian government was going to start a targeted crackdown on Christian neighborhoods due to the violence in Northern Ireland, the feeling might hit home a bit more. It’s not about a news report that makes a specific identification for a specific crime. I don’t think most Muslims in America would feel targeted if they heard “police are looking for a short middle-eastern man, early twenties, athletic with close-cropped hair.” That sounds like a description of an actual suspect for an actual crime. But that’s not what’s happening here. You… Read more »
How many deaths per year from Muslim violence are acceptable to you?
What does that mean? No deaths from Muslim violence are acceptable to me. But I wouldn’t betray my faith and trust in Jesus Christ even if there were a million of them. Your question is a logical fallacy from the beginning. It’s very existence implies that adopting policies which would CREATE more violence are somehow on the side of preventing death. How many deaths per year from guns are acceptable to you? You see how leading and false the question is? Look at Northern Ireland. When the British government tried their heavy-handed, patrol and secure approach starting in 1968, violence… Read more »
So how come gang violence in LA has decreased so much? Seems like aggressive policing worked out just fine overall. http://www.psmag.com/books-and-culture/the-end-of-gangs-los-angeles-southern-california-epidemic-crime-95498
There’s no reason Muslims have to be allowed in Christian countries. Build a wall, deport them all.
After almost 20 years of going awfully, the “war on gangs” finally began to turn around based on natural cycles in drug use/demographics, a change in LAPD philosophy and the importation of better crime-fighting technology, and some really strong community anti-gang programs. Gang violence didn’t decrease during those high-force periods of the 1980s and 1990s. It was still awful until around 2002-2004, when murders and gang-related robberies hit their peak (although per-capita the actual gang homicides might have been worst in the late 80s/early 90s). When it finally did start dropping, it paralleled a national decline in serious crime that… Read more »
I don’t know, indicting seventy people at once sounds like “hard-core suppression” to me. I agree that attempting to deal with the threat piecemeal can make things worse instead of better — which is why I support the wholesale removal of Muslims rather than trying to just pick out the ones who’ve most recently committed a crime.
No, indicting a bunch of people has nothing to do with the general community suppression. That’s just the sort of thing you do when you’re making a case against any gang, whether it’s the mafia or the hell’s angels or the crips. When you indict someone for committing a crime, you’re addressing an actual individual for an actual violation of the law. The hard-core suppression tactics in the Rampart era were far worse than that – constant harassment of young Black men just standing on the street, police beatings as justice, planted evidence to get trumped-up convictions, etc. And the… Read more »
First off, if the scriptures called for violence, and the role model for the Christian faith carried out such actions, I should expect that civil authorities are expecting me to act in line with my beliefs. I hardly see how assuming someone claiming an ideology will actually act in line with it would be wrong. And past crime or planned crime it does not make a difference if there is an overarching plan to commit crime. To deny that this is the plan requires a reinterpretation of the Quran, the Hadith, and the accounts of Muhammad’s life. “Various solid reports”… Read more »
So since the Hebrew scriptures call for violence and Moses committed violent acts, that means you’d be okay with the civil authorities assuming that Jews are like that? We already know where that can lead. I’m not going to start defending Islam. Of course I think it’s vastly inferior to obedience to Christ. But arguments about theology have nothing to with police work to apprehend the suspects of actual crimes. I’ve known many Muslims, and whatever you think they “should” believe about supporting violence against innocents, they don’t. According to research, the ones that become terrorists typically don’t even come… Read more »
What does it even mean to “patrol and secure” Muslim neighborhoods though? Do patrols usually avoid Muslim neighborhoods? There’s a strong precedent. Look at what happened when the British government tried to clamp down on Catholic neighborhoods in Northern Ireland in the 1960s and 1970s. The violence escalated, and quickly. I’m strongly in favor of doing good police investigations, but if we’re thinking about the long term, then HOW we do police work in general matters a lot more than the actual results of conviction in any single case. If one perpetrator is apprehended or fails to be apprehended, then… Read more »
Stereotype: a behavior patter you don’t want to think about–Thomas Sowell.
A basic problem with Islam is simply that Mohammed was a false prophet who is in Hell.
Islam a religion of peace? Then let the Palestinian Arab leaders personally string up a few of their followers who have murdered Jews or Christians. That will show they want to give peace to the Jews and can deliver it.
The only difference is time scale. The terrorist does in a moment what the “peaceful” invader does over a longer period — destroy social trust, erode traditional culture, and give opportunity for expansion of government intervention and oppression. Even if no guys named Muhammad set off bombs, it’s still the right choice to evict them.
Ashv, I wish you could explain this to me slowly and patiently. How do my Muslim surgeon, my Muslim cop friend, and my Muslim checkout clerk at the 7/11 destroy social trust? All have provided service to the community. They and their families are not on welfare. None are criminal. How can it possibly be right to evict them?
Ethnically diverse neighbourhoods have lower social trust both within and across groups, as famously studied by Robert Putnam: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/full
I certainly doubt that your city having only 3 foreigners in it would affect social cohesion significantly. But that’s not what’s being discussed.
Hi Ashv, and Happy Easter. Do you believe that if such an eviction were ordered, it could be accomplished peacefully and without resistance? Do you anticipate that some Christians would defend Muslims’ right to be here, and would protect them at the risk of harm to themselves? Would you recognize their attitude as a specifically Christian response to a demand of conscience? Finally, would you theoretically be willing to harm fellow Christians who interposed themselves between those who would expel Muslims and those who would protect them?
No, yes, no, and yes. I don’t believe in “rights” as an abstract category apart from specific laws about them, and thus don’t believe in a “right to be somewhere”.
Happy Easter to you.
Cruz has attempted to clarify his remarks, and claims by “patrol and secure”, he simply meant the NYPD’s Muslim-directed surveillance program that it ran for about a decade until 2014. The problems with that? The program, the secret “Demographics Unit”, basically consisted of undercover police officers going into areas with heavy Muslim or Middle Eastern presence and eavesdropping on conversations, employing photo/video surveillance, and trying to monitor random citizens to see what they were up to. Anyone heard criticizing US policy or wars got a case file made about them. “Patrol”, but doesn’t really describe any “secure”. The program violated… Read more »
By writing this post I am not clear who I am addressing. I am going to be honest writing is just making me feel better and that I can then get on with my day. I post this is as a Londoner. I regularly read this blog and is by far my favourite on-line read, genuinely it is. I have never thought this before about one of Doug’s post but this was one is silly. In the thought experiment the reason the Christian’s are not being insightful is because 70% of their Muslims neighbours are not more likely to be… Read more »