It's Their Job

                                                                             

I suspect that the New York Police Department is tracking major crime figures. They're mostly Italian Catholics, aren't they? And I imagine they're investigating all those who enter and leave the places where criminals congregate – whether restaurants, nightclubs, or whatever.ⁱ

No bother. People don't make much of it. In fact they probably applaud it, even though those groups as a whole don't pose much of a threat to the average citizen. The police would be remiss if they didn't keep track of potential sources of danger. There is certainly no accusation of spying or impinging on religious freedom. It's just a matter of common sense. That's what we're paying them for.

If you're a terrorist, though, or attend the same functions as known or suspected terrorists, it's considered harassment if law enforcement officials try to determine whether you pose a threat to others. Since there appears to be an increased number of such terrorists among Muslims, and since they seem to be disproportionately involved in those activities making them an increased threat to the average citizen, even if the terrorists are a minority of the community, it is logical to assume that they will be disproportionally evaluated as police do all that is in their power to prevent any incident. Some view this as profiling and religious persecution but that assessment is a misreading of police activities. Police policies are just a matter of common sense. That's what we're paying them for.

No, maintain some of our citizens. That's not what we're paying them for. Not in this case. We must not target Muslims or any aspect of their religion and culture. The American way is one of equality, and the profiling of probable Muslims is a violation of their rights under the First Amendment to the Constitutionⁱⁱ – the American equivalent of the Bible. Indeed, it's the same amendment that ensures freedom of religion. Well, that's not exactly true.

More accurately, the First Amendment gives us freedom from religion.ⁱⁱⁱ According to the writ – a writ which the atheists among us, as well as their defenders, mistakenly claim^iv precludes any governmental act that has a religious component – the government cannot make any laws “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (I have emphasized words from the Declaration of Independence and Constitution in the view that they relate to the question at hand.) The courts and the lawyers will have their own understandings of what those words mean, but the amendment doesn't seem to mean that our government is not permitted to have anything at all to do with religion. (Actually, many of those in office now have taken their oaths of office using religious books.) According to The Declaration of Independence,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that they [the people] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The Declaration certainly refers to a Creator, so it seems evident that the Founders were not fundamentally opposed to the observation of religious practices – only to the imposition of the practices of some, on all. It is of note as well that they considered it the responsibility of government to ensure the People's “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” even by organizing its powers … “to effect their Safety and Happiness.” And they placed safety before happiness.

Safety is the concern of most of our citizens. Recognizing the reality that one of the most significant threats to our safety is that of terrorism – the events of September 11, 2001 and prior and subsequent actions, here and abroad, demonstrated that – we have increased the utilization of profiling^v in our battle against those threats. If that process requires focusing on Muslims, it makes sense in view of the fact that most of the terrorist actions around the world have been the work of Muslims. That doesn't mean that all Muslims are terrorists but that as a group they represent the greatest threat. Religious prejudice and the First Amendment are not issues. Large numbers of people – both Muslims and non-Muslims – are likely to be unhappy with such a practice, but the Founders and most of us placed safety before happiness. The Constitution places a premium on our safety.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Domestic Tranquility and the common defence [sic] were its priorities as they are ours. If they are not secure, we cannot enjoy happiness. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution don't require that we ignore reality and check our intelligence at the door. First things first.^vi The Declaration was a direct descendant of the “Social Contract” which was outlined by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. It maintained that there was a bargain between the governed and the government in which the people gave up certain of their rights in order to gain protection. Perhaps that means that we must permit some infringements of what we consider basic rights. Perhaps there must be some profiling. It has been highly successful elsewhere. If that is what is necessary to ensure our safety, so be it. Many of us are willing to permit properly supervised modification our freedom^vii with that safety as our goal.

So if, in the interests of our security, our representatives, people we have freely elected, place the responsibility for ensuring that safety in our law-enforcement officers and authorize means that some view as inappropriate, we should remember that absent such security we will have no rights. So if the police take actions our representatives authorize under such circumstances, we should support rather than denounce them. Perhaps they're not always perfect in the performance of their mandate,^viii but they're not scapegoating one group. After all, they're doing what we pay them for. It's their job.

Next episode: “Man Makes The Clothes” – Usually.

i      And I'd be surprised if the police aren't watching the Russian “mob” as well. And all the places they go and the people they meet or, at least, those in their community. Not to mention the various drug cartels. Russian-Americans, and those from countries sending illegal drugs to the US are, overwhelmingly, honest, but we may wind up watching more than the specific people we suspect of crimes.

ii     In fact, even saying something negative about Muslims is a violation of their constitutional rights. The First Amendment may guarantee free speech, and you can insult members of other groups, but finding fault with a Muslim is a hate crime and may even be responsible for violence.

iii    Which is why the Constitution, a wholly secular document, is our “spiritual” guide.

iv   “Claim,” because there is no such exclusion. Certainly, military and congressional chaplains gainsay that view, as do tax exemptions for religious organizations. Even the famous “wall of separation” which many maintain precludes any such involvement, is not a constitutional feature; rather it is a term that Thomas Jefferson used in a letter nearly two decades after the Constitution was written. All that the First Amendment forbids is the establishment of a state religion, guaranteeing all citizens the right to a free exercise of religion.

v      As well as other tools.

vi     Freedom of Speech was only given in the Bill of Rights which was formulated after the Constitution was approved.

vii    Some even view unmodified freedom as anarchy and a return to the “Law of the jungle.”

viii   We enter here the “slippery slope” absolutist argument versus “the greatest good for the greatest number” position – a philosophic dispute that will always exist. I believe that sufficient common sense and safeguards exist to guarantee the preservation of the freedoms as a whole even if it is necessary to place some limitations on the rights of some.