Racists and Fools?

self ^ | 10-11-01 | self

[r9etb]

In the month following the 9/11 attacks we've seen here on FR some amazing and frankly repugnant statements.

For example, there have been suggestions that we round up and deport all non-citizen Moslems (and after them, maybe the Moslem citizens, too). It has also been seriously suggested that we oughta show our resolve by bombing Mohommed's grave. And of course there are innumerable other comments of the same type.

The most obvious characteristics of these rants are that (1) they are venomous; (2) they are racist; and (3) they voice some remarkably bad ideas.

The most charitable reading of this stuff is that it's just good people blowing off steam. Unfortunately, given the vehemence with which these positions are often defended, I have to conclude that there is something uglier behind a few of these rants.

Someone on FR recently noted that the people to watch out for aren't the the ones on the other side -- you already know they're out to get you. What you really have to watch out for is the people on your side, because they're the ones who can drag you to places you don't want to go.

We're seeing that principle in action here: foolish and racist rants from those on "our side" that are not much different from the foolish and racist rants of the Taliban.

That said, I don't really think that most of the people making these comments and suggestions are racists or fools. I think they're upset, and want to do something, and have simply posted without thinking.

Please, folks, think before you post. Before you suggest we deport Moslems, think about what we'd have to do to make that happen. Before suggesting we bomb Mohammed's grave, consider what the result of that act would be.

It will make you look better, and it will make FR look better, too.

[Texasforever]

There is a very humanitarian reason for sending legal aliens back to their countries. If there is one more general attack in this country by a Muslim, no amount of "let's all get along" pap will be sufficient to stop mass attacks on these people. They should be sent home until this situation is resolved and then come back if they so desire.

[JohnD9207]

While I support your right to say this and to some extent it is true, there is NO politically correct answer to this problem. How about all of the non citizens on expired visas? I learned along time ago that to state a problem without having an answer just counterproductive. Calling people racist is an easy thing to do, but hard to prove. While some members of the PC generation find it fashionable to scream racism, a powerful tool that keeps people at arms length, usually no solution is ever sought. People bend over backwards to avoid being labeled racist. Look at the power that word has given Jessie Jackson. He is winning cash settlements from major corporations just by using the race card. But who is helped? He is a multimilionare, but poor folks are still poor. Sir, some unusual measures must be taken during this time of war to protect the majority. NO...internment camps were and are wrong, however the I.N.S. must take steps to return to the country of origin anyone here on an expired visa. Really doesn't matter where they are from. WHY...because it is the law. Now if that makes me a racist so be it, but above all else we are a nation of laws.

[ChinaThreat]

I see why you call yourself Non-Sequitur.

The Constitution is a charter outlining the laws, that define a nation (the USA). A nation's laws would logically apply to the citizens of that nation. The Constitution then goes on to state specifically what is necessary to be a citizen. Therefore the Constitution defines the nation, defines its citizens and defines what rights and laws apply to its citizens. What you are saying is that the constitution was written to apply to citizens of other countries. This negates the whole concept of legal jurisdiction which dates back beyond the Magna Carta of the 13th century.

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make a point.

[Non-Sequitur]

So don't try to equate lawful deportation with a ban on gun ownership which IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

So how do you figure deporting people because of their religion regardless of guilt is lawful or constitutional? What law or amendment do you use to support that?

[Non-Sequitur]

You might try to read the Constitution some time. Nowhere in it does it define what is a citizen, what is necessary to be a citizen, or that it's rights and laws apply only to citizens. The Constitution is the law of the land, applying to citizen and non-citizen alike. Muslims, regardless of whether they are citizens or not, have the same rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech and due process of law as you and I do.

[Non-Sequitur]

The constitution defines the rules for citizens of the United States of America.

Where? What amendment states that these protections are for citizens only?