I just had a wonderful discussion with my roommate Aaron. We took opposite sides in an argument that, were it a formal debate, would begin with something like "Resolved: That following the terrorist attacks by religious radicals, the United States government should have the power to eliminate freedoms (granted by the Bill of Rights) of those who are of the same religious affiliation as the terrorists." Or something like that... it's not even fair to make that claim that all (that the majority, that even 5% of, etc.) Muslims follow the same ideals as the terrorists. It would be like claiming that all Christians have the same beliefs as the Ku Klux Klan.
I was arguing against this idea- and granted, Aaron did come up with some arguments that (initially) seemed sound. But at the end of it all, I think the agreement to which logical thought leads is that it's simply not a good idea. For any reason.
I can't find any other explanation than... well... I really believe that this whole idea is racist. I have heard people say that "For safety reasons, the FBI should tap the phones of people with Muslim names." This is frankly ridiculous and very, very racist. If the IRA had committed acts of terrorism against the USA, I don't believe it would EVER enter into conversation that MY phone line should be tapped because my name is David McGee. I happen to share an ethnic background with the members of the IRA, but my skin is pale and my hair reasonably blonde. So restricting my freedoms would not even be a considered option.
Consider World War II. The United States were fighting the Germans, Italians, and Japanese. Yet the government sent only the Americans of Japanese ancestry into "internment camps." Is there any other reason than that their skin was darker?
If you disagree with me at all, please e-mail me at david@mcgees.org. I would love to here any intelligent counter-arguments.