more on Really bothers me djf Be Very Afraid : Nearly halfofAmericans wou ld restrictMuslimAmericans Civil Rights

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

_______________ Forward Header _______________
Subject:        Re: [IP] more on Really bothers me djf Be Very Afraid : Nearly halfofAmericans wou ld 
restrictMuslimAmericans Civil Rights
Author: "John S. Quarterman" <jsq () quarterman org>
Date:           18th December 2004 10:55:24 pm

> Subject:      Re: [IP] Really bothers me djf Be Very Afraid: Nearly half ofAm
> ericans wou ld restrictMuslimAmericans Civil Rights
> Author:       "Robert C. Atkinson" <rca53 () columbia edu>
> Date:         18th December 2004 8:56:08 pm
>
> Dave:
>
> In the 1940s, Americans of German extraction were a significant portion 
> of the population and "mainstream" in looks, religion, language, and 
> well integrated in the greater eonomic and social community.

German names were nonetheless enough to single out targets.  Earlier today
I was talking to a friend who says his parents' German neighbors were
subjected to crowds running through their neighborhood throwing eggs
and rocks during WW II; the only thing that stopped it was a flag in
the window with three stars for three sons serving with U.S. forces.
The town named Berlin in Georgia changed its name to something else
during WW I.  Etc.  Anti-German prejudice did exist in the U.S. and was
often acted upon.  Fortunately, the U.S. government did not take it up
as policy.

> Americans 
> of Japanese extraction weren't as fortunate and their Constitutional 
> rights were trampled after Pearl Harbor.  The poll you circulated seems 
> to indicate that Muslim Americans are on the verge of being treated like 
> Japanese Americans, not German Americans.

And did the way Japanese Americans were treated do anything at all to stop
the Japanese Imperial government's actions?  Not that I've ever heard.

>  If (when?) Islamists unleash 
> a WMD in the United States, don't you think that there is a real danger 
> that American Muslims will be treated like Japanese Americans were...or 
> worse? The easiest way for terrorists to destroy Western liberal 
> democracies is to induce those democracies to commit cultural suicide.  
> A WMD attack would be awful but could not, itself, have a catastrophic 
> impact on the country as a whole. Only our reactions could do that.  
> Isn't that the lesson of 9/11?  How do we avoid cultural suicide in a 
> post-attack panic?  Do you think the existing  "checks and 
> balances"--social and political-- will be strong enough to resist 
> changes some fundamental rights?

Only if we exercise those checks and balances.  As Benjamin Franklin
said, when asked what the framers of the Constitution had produced:
``A republic, if you can keep it.''

Robert C. Atkinson remarked:

> > Like it or not, the burden is on the Muslim community to take the 
> > initiative to convince the vast majority of Americans (and now 
> > Europeans) that Muslims can be "trusted."

1700 years ago Origin wrote:

``In the next place, when Celsus says in express words, "If they would
answer me, not as if I were asking for information, for I am acquainted
with all their opinions, but because I take an equal interest in them all,
it would be well. And if they will not, but will keep reiterating, as
they generally do, 'Do not investigate,' etc., they must, he continues,
explain to me at least of what nature these things are of which they
speak, and whence they are derived," etc.''

--Origen, Against Celsus, Book I, Chapter XII.

Origen was quoting Celsus, who was attacking that dangerous sect,
the Christians, which many people thought was subversive to the Roman
Empire.  The empire was in danger, but not from Christians inside it.

> > To protect core civil liberties from being swept away in a post-attack 
> > panic, civil liberterians should start thinking the unthinkable: what 
> > sort of Bill of Rights will best protect life, liberty and pursuit of 
> > hapiness in an era of terrorism? I doubt the populace--and many 
> > politicians--will have the patience for nuanced and thoughtful debate 
> > after a WMD kills a few hundred thousand civilians. This is the time for 
> > the nuanced and thoughtful debate.

How about a Bill of Rights that protects citizens instead of giving
the terrorists what they want?  The current one was written shortly
after a foreign enemy had been present on American shores and had 
killed a significant fraction of the population, plus about a third
of the population supported that enemy.  A Bill of Rights good enough
for that time ought to be good enough for this time.

-jsq

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/