The right wing talking head in question here is Ann Coulter, who appears quite often on that fair and balanced Fox News Channel. Coulter wrote the following opinion piece which you can read in full here.
I'll just give you some of the more anger inducing highlights...and those parts not weighted down by actual facts:
quote:
Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims -- at least all terrorists capable of assembling a murderous plot against America that leaves 7,000 people dead in under two hours.
What they hell is she talking about? This is jingoistic, it's bigoted, and it wrong.
Tim McVeigh anyone? Does the name of our own little home grown terrorist ring a bell?
quote:
It is impossible to stop Islamic fundamentalists who believe that slaughtering thousands of innocent Americans will send them straight to Allah. All we can do is politely ask aliens from suspect nations to leave -- with the full expectation of readmittance -- while we sort the peace-loving immigrants from the murderous fanatics.More benefits of the plan next week, but the beauty part of the Terrorist Deportation Plan can't wait. There will be two fail-safes: (1) Muslim immigrants who agree to spy on the millions of Muslim citizens unaffected by the deportation order can stay; and (2) any Muslim immigrant who gets a U.S. senator to waive his deportation -- by name -- gets to stay.
In other words, round up Muslims and deport them. Or if you are willing to spy you can stay.
Well, there's a good plan.
Afterall, isn't rounding up people based solely on race, sex or religion a rather un-American thing to do?
Still doesn't the fact that the United States did something similar during World War II to people of Japanese heritage mean anything? Afterall, we were wrong to do that.
No says Ann!
quote:
Pious invocations of the Japanese internment are absurd. For one thing, those were U.S. citizens. Citizens can't be deported. So far -- thank God -- almost all the mass murderers of Americans have been aliens.
Ok, that's so wrong. She either outright made it up or is unfathomably ignorant of history.
We only locked up citizens? Horse crap.
1) First generation persons living in America of Japanese heritage who were not allowed to become American citizens. Only the children born in America of parents who emigrated from Japan were American citizens.
2) Hundreds, if not thousands, of persons of Japanese descent from Peru were shipped to the United States and interned.
Incensed?
Angered?
Enraged?
All the above? You should be.
[ September 28, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
quote:
Tim McVeigh anyone? Does the name of our own little home grown terrorist ring a bell?
She cut him out of the running when she said:
quote:
at least all terrorists capable of assembling a murderous plot against America that leaves 7,000 people dead in under two hours.
You DID read that bit, didn't you?
quote:
Afterall, isn't rounding up people based solely on race, sex or religion a rather un-American thing to do?
No. It's a human thing to do. Humans are categorizing animals. However, that doesn't mean that I think that this idea is 'right.' Simply 'effective.'
So the choice in this matter is not unlike "In the Pale Moonlight." Do you do something that will work, knowing that it's morally questionable at best, or do you run the risk of letting the Dominion take over the Alpha Quadrant? Just call me Garak.
quote:
persons living in America of Japanese heritage who were not allowed to become American citizens
Um, okay, I could be wrong about this, but isn't/wasn't EVERY first-generation immigrant eligible for naturalization in the same way? Learn the stuff, pass the test, take the oath?
I'm quite sure that McVeigh and his cohorts who didn't exist would love to have committed an act of this magnitude, only problem is they weren't into gratification in the next life, they wanted to be able to create their own little Aryan mini-states in this one.
As for the 'effectiveness' of rounding up all Muslims (which apparently overrides that fact that it's isn't right - are you saying the end justifies the means? That's what landed you in this mess in the first place, when bin Laden received US support in the 80's), let's clear one thing up here: Arabs, Muslims, whoever you think the enemy is (this week), they're not all dark, swarthy and wear towels on their heads! Many of them are Caucasian. Many of them would pass for Italian, or Spanish. . .
As for Japanese immigrants being refused naturalisation during the war, I don't know so won't comment. But I wouldn't be surprised if somehow their applications were processed very slowly. More human nature.
And, lastly, I get really worried when people here start citing Trek plots as solutions to moral dilemmas. "Sisko said the end justifies the means, but he felt really bad about it afterward, so that's OK."
quote:
Many of them would pass for Italian, or Spanish. . .
Well, obviously, they'll have to go too.
Would it work? Probably, if we were thorough (as for differentiating between light arabs and dark hispanics/italians, all that would usually take is a look at the person's NAME. 'Al-zagoomi' Probably isn't Italian.)
Is it 'right' as in 'just, fair, and good?' Most definitely not.
Is it a good idea? No. It wold only inspire more dislike, and more problems. Plus, it would give other countries a hell of an immigration problem, given that we're still the prime 'run-to' place. It's neither a good political or a good social idea.
No, all told, it's sucky idea, and not one which would be deserving of the name "United States of America."
Yet, it's still better than most other countries' historical solutions, which have generally been "round 'em up and kill 'em." We won't do that... unless there's another round of bombings.
quote:
You DID read that bit, didn't you?
Yes I did and thank you for pointing that out to me. In fact, I even made sure to include it in the quote that I took because I know the habits of people not to read varios links.
Now Ann Coulter, besides being a right wing talking head, is a lawyer and she is trying to make a case. The case can be sumed up thusly. All terrorist are Muslim, therefor we must deport non-citizen Msulims from the United States for our own collective safety.
From the case she is trying to make I should imagine that she is out of practice. It is an absolute absurity to made the qualification that only 7,000 people dead does a terrorist make. And it's only made so she can castigate people of Musilm heritage. There is simply no other reason to make it.
Should numbers of deaths the only matter of degree when declaring all terrorists are Muslim? Any reasoned argument about terrorism would say no, that it is the intent is a factor as well.
McVeigh used a devise that the military of today would call an instrument of mass destruction. He was a Terrorist.
168 people killed in a massive bombing. Is 168 not enough? Yes. McVeigh was a terrorist.
He attacked civilians. He was a terrorist.
He timed the attack to do achieve the most death and destruction without thought or consideration to the children or anyone else at the location. He did this to get the 'biggest bang' for his views that he could. McVeigh was a Terrorist.
McVeigh was not a Muslim and yet he committed acts of great violence and destruction that there is no other word left for him than evil. That puts him in the same class of people that planned and executed the 11 September attacks. And it's bigoted to make a distinction based solely on religion.
quote:
Do you do something that will work, knowing that it's morally questionable at best...
Honestly, I am having a very hard time believing that someone would even make such a claim. Help me out here. Since when is it only morally questionable to round up people based on religion in the United States of America?? Perhaps you could explain it in more depth Fo2.
Why is ok to deport Muslims from a country based on religious freedom? Where even the Constitution grants free exercise of religion?
I would point out that such roundups based on religion were carried out 60 years ago when it happened to Jews.
The point is that it's not simply questionable. No, it's not the human thing to do. It's wrong. It's an outright and egregious wrong It's reprehensible. And it goes againt EVERY reason why America is here in the first place.
quote:
Um, okay, I could be wrong about this, but isn't/wasn't EVERY first-generation immigrant eligible for naturalization in the same way? Learn the stuff, pass the test, take the oath?
That's incorrect. First generation Japanese were not allowed to become naturalized citizens nor were they allowed to own land.
Here, let me direct you to the research that proves such. TAKAO OZAWA v. U S, 260 U.S. 178 (1922) .
quote:
Since when is it only morally questionable to round up people based on religion in the United States of America?? Perhaps you could explain it in more depth Fo2.
Er.. since Waco? No, they were already rounded up in one place. Hm. Wasn't morally questionable, what happened afterwards, though...
Let me ask this question this way.
Let's just suppose that somewhere out there there were a few dozen more unknown terrorist 'sleepers' planning, as soon as things got back to normal, to go after the Sears Tower, Disneyworld, Disneyland, and, say, the SuperBowl.
IF, to SAVE 10,000 or more lives, you HAD to treat two million people like crap for a year, would you do it?
Are lives worth hurt feelings?
I'm asking, not to argue, but because I really don't know, I don't know what I'd do. I don't even know if it's a valid question. But suppose it was.
And according to the clock, I posted an hour BEFORE you did. Either that or your reply took an hour to formulate?
[ September 28, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Rob, wasn't it you who told me that the universe doesn't operate in either/ors? I disagree with that overgeneralization, but in this particular case it applies. I don't think there can be a situation where any human being has only two options.
"Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims -- at least all terrorists capable of assembling a murderous plot against America that leaves 7,000 people dead in under two hours."
This seems to be the statement that her entire arguement is based on. And yet, it's patently ludicrous. So, doesn't that basically make her entire idea nonsense?
Regards to the religious deportaion issue. I'm certainly no expert on spying. All my information seems to come from Tom Clancy. But it occures to me that the American system of justice is set up so that one is...at least on paper...innocent until proven guilty.
As a nation we have striven to be better than we are, it pains me deeply that we would be so regressive in judging people simply on the basis of religion. And it pains me to read people on the far right making such statements...not just at this time, but any time.
No other qualification is given or is none to be asked for? You're Muslim you go?
Is no proof of complicity is to be sought or provided? You're Muslim you go?
Are we to abandon all due process to fear and panic?
We do that and terror has already won. We give in to bigoted ideas from people like Coulter, and America can put a closed sign on the Statue of Liberty.
Martin Luther King said that people should be judges on content of their character. That would certainly include their religious practices.
People always say that freedom isn't free. That saying is right, there are no two ways about it. However, there is more to that price than death in battle.
A freedom requires that we not deport people based on religious practice.
This is the pice that we pay to have an open and free society.
The path that is open to us is vigilance.
[ September 29, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Either you loving saying "Snay" or you're not aware I am, in fact, the Flarite formerlly known as JeffKardde. 
[ September 29, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
quote:
it pains me deeply that we would be so regressive in judging people simply on the basis of religion
Ah. That explains part of my problem, then. I DO judge people, or at least, form specualtive preliminary opinions about them, based upon religion... whether they have it or not, not which one it happens to be.
As I see all faith-based religions (leaving out such as Deism and any others which do not require the active presence of a Deity) as inherently irrational, (something which keeps me from being accepted by the 'far right'), I don't have such moral qualms about discrimination on its basis.
I generally clasify people of religion along a scale ranging from 'Beneficial Kook' (people who do good things in the name of Big Juju) to 'Dangerous Psycho Kook,' (Pat Robertson, Bin Laden, Torquemada), with the operative word still being 'Kook.'
It's a prejudice. It's unfair. It probably keeps me from grasping the concept of discrimination along those lines as being quite as bad as it really is.
Anyway...
I'm not saying that the two options I presented ARE the only ones. Certainly they aren't, and I don't find either one really acceptable. I was asking for speculation as to 'What if you had to choose between those two options?' One can, in some cases, find onself forced into a situation where one HAS to choose between only bad choices. (Didn't someone once say that THAT was the essense of Command?)
Despite Kirk, there is such a thing as a no-win scenario, where there is no real victory, just different degrees of loss to choose from.
Isn't humanity just great?
"...Deism and any others which do not require the active presence of a Deity..."
Erm... Deism certainly does require a deity, by definition. Why do you think they call it "deism"? The only "religions" that don't require a deity are atheism and agnosticism, and anything else that falls under one of those two broad categories. And deism most certainly is neither of those.
As far as "intolerance" goes... I think it's entirely logical to "judge" (I use quotes so you know I may not mean the same definition of "judge" that some people might be thinking of) someone on the basis of whether or not they are religious and what religion they follow. It's not the same as judging someone on the basis of something like race or gender or what-have-you. Those things aren't a choice. Religion is. If someone follows a particular religion, you know that it was a conscious choice by the person to do so, and that tells you something about them. Either that, or you know they've accepted it through blind ignorance, which still tells you something about them.
Now, obviously, this isn't a basis for such judgements as "all Muslims are evil and need to be bombed out of existence". But, just because some judgements would be unfounded, that doesn't mean that the entire concept of judging someone by their religion is invalid...
quote:
tolerate:
1)To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit.
2)To recognize and respect (the rights, beliefs, or practices of others).
3)To put up with; endure.
If you only accept meaning 1 or 3, then, yeah, I'm redefining the word. How evil. I imagine if I were a politician Bill O'Reilly would be lambasting me already as the latest in Satan's clutch of liberal scum.
But, *gasp*, look at number 2. Using that sense of the word, one who does not recognize and respect the rights, beliefs, or practices of others is therefore intolerant.
Explain to me how Person A can be tolerant and yet hold the belief that those who worship God [at all/in a different way to him or her] is [patently ignorant, stupid and kooky/living in sin].
Oh, yes, oozing with respect.
[ September 30, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
You already did that. You gave two definitions of tolerance that obviously allow for it, and the third could, if you want to dig around in semantics.
It is my opinion that my selection of the definition in question better suits an orderly and civil society, and that adhering to a less stringent definition indeed provides the illusion of civility when one is in fact undermining mankind's determination to live in peace.
Your opinion is noted.
Your opinion is also irrelevant.
When people talk about tolerance in the religious sense, they mean tolerance by the first or third definitions. "I'm not going to kill my neighbor because he disagrees with me." That is totally different from acceptance, which is closer to (though not nearly synonymous with) the second definition of tolerance.
If you mean "tolerance", say "tolerance".
If you mean "acceptance", say "acceptance".
But don't say "tolerance" when you mean "acceptance," just because you think the confusion you cause will somehow lead to a better world. If you want to preach acceptance, then fine, do it. But don't claim that it's something else entirely.
quote:
When people talk about tolerance in the religious sense, they mean tolerance by the first or third definitions.
quote:
we have Intolerant Atheists.
No we don't. I repeatedly tell you people I'm a Deist, but per Standard Operating Procedure, you never listen.
Nor am I intolerant. Respecting someone else's beliefs means respecting their right to HAVE those beliefs, not respecting the validity of the beliefs themselves. Young-Earth Creationists, Flat-Earthers, Gene Ray, and Joe who comes into the library and thinks my name is Dave, all have the right to believe those things. They are still all wrong, however. I leave them alone and generally do not tell them they are stupid to their faces (even when they do not do the same to me). I tolerate them. (Mostly because it would inconvenience me more to do anything else about them.)
If you take this 'new' definition of 'tolerance' and apply it to anything besides religion, it falls apart imediately. Therefore it is not valid... unless you are so foolish as to be willing to 'accept as valid' some paranoid's 'belief' that you've been possessed by braineating aliens and must be destroyed to protect humanity.
quote:
"...Deism and any others which do not require the active presence of a Deity..."Erm... Deism certainly does require a deity, by definition.
ACTIVE PRESENCE. Read it again. The basic foundation of Deism is that while a God-being may have set the universe in motion, it is not currently involved in its day-to-day workings, has left no text or rules to follow, does not answer prayers or perform miracles, and is in no way involved with your life.
Now, if you want me to GUESS, based on what I'D have done if _I_ were in "God's" position, at the dawn of time (this being the best anyone who isn't God can to, using their own comparative reasoning), I'd say a combination of the following three attributes (assuming that God is 'like us' enough to have common emotional attributes, something you cannot deny since your own books of belief describe 'Him' as being capable of jealousy, hatred, love, compassion, and regret):
Loneliness
Boredom
Curiosity
Being alone in an empty universe for an eternity cannot be a pleasant concept, I think. A sane being would want companionship, even that of lower life forms.
The same goes for an alleviation of boredom. The Universe is an amazingly complex place, yet amazingly simple at the same time. It makes for interesting viewing.
Same for curiosity. 'What would happen if I do this?' is an impulse almost irresistable to humans , and seems to be comment to the more intelligent animals, as well. The universe is full of experimental possibilities.
Send it back to the airport with F-16's as an escort!!
We've been hijacked!!
So anyway...