You don't have to like Islam to oppose "the Travel Ban"

One of the more difficult-to-understand concepts involved in maintaining a free country is granting equal and full rights to those with whom you disagree.  Far too many citizens in the U.S. (and elsewhere) believe that in a democracy, the majority get their way, period.  Not so in the United States, thank goodness.

There are certain rights that are NOT subject to majority whim and these are the rights enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  As the key example is the First Amendment which reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  Please note the very first mandate of this Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..." 

The author of the First Amendment, James Madison, was clear in his intent.  He wrote, “It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points.  The tendency to usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded against. by an entire abstinence of the Govt. from interference in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others.  [Letter to the Reverend Jasper Adams, January 1, 1832]”  ― James Madison, Letters and Other Writings of James Madison Volume 3"

Just to further demonstrate Madison's intent to limit the power of the majority, he also wrote “Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments, the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from the acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents.”  ― James Madison, Letters and Other Writings of James Madison Volume 3"

Now I understand that just because it's in the Constitution and James Madison made his intent clear, it does not mean it is the best policy for us to follow.  However, after over 200 years of experience it has become clear that Madison's First Amendment has served us well.  In fact one could make the argument that no sentence in the history of humanity has served humanity better than the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America: it is perhaps the greatest sentence ever written.  It IS the greatest sentence ever written!  Thank you James Madison.

What does this have to do with the current travel ban proposed by executive order of President Trump?  Clearly Trump campaigned and gained tremendous support on the basis of his proposed ban on all Muslims attempting to travel to the U.S.  He clearly sought advice, from Rudy Giuliani for example, on how to achieve his previously stated goal while passing legal muster.  This is a ban intended to target Muslims and the "carve out" exemptions in the ban for Christians and other non-Muslims proves this.  His "travel" ban is fooling no one; it is the beginning of  a process to ban Muslims from traveling to the U.S.  The fact that he did not ban travel from a number of countries that have actually had its citizens travel to the U.S. to kill Americans would be confounding until you realize they are countries he has business interests within!  If a President Hillary Clinton had done something similar there would be calls for impeachment, probably justifiably.

It is obvious to many, except Trump and his supporters, that many Muslims are persecuted within these and other countries, not just for being the "wrong" kind of Muslim, but for being moderate, reasonable and in fact, freedom loving Muslims.  To Trump, it seems, all Muslims are the same.

The above all being said, I am not a Muslim, and you can bet your last dollar, I will never become a Muslim.  I cringe when I hear someone say "Islam is a religion of peace".  I also cringe when someone says "God is love" or whatever anyone else claims about their chosen religion or ideology.  I know these claims are not true by the results, by history.

Some critics of Islam claim that up to 51% of Muslims in the U.S. believe that they should be allowed to live under sharia law in the U.S.  I have not verified this claim from a reliable pollster, only from less reliable pollsters, but the claim is widely repeated.  If you parse this concept carefully, it does not necessarily mean that U.S. Muslims  believe that everyone would have to live under such law, but instead only those who choose to governed this way, but this distinction is still unacceptable.  All Americans of all religions are to be governed under the same law and treated equally.  The government should never be placed in a position to enforce a religious law even if the citizen wants to be governed in this manner.

But please note that while the above unverified claim about American Muslims is disturbing, it is not that much different from what reliable pollsters such as Pew  Research found in October 2006 about American Christians. "When asked which should have more influence over the laws of the country, ­ the Bible or the will of the people, even when it conflicts with the Bible ­ most Americans (63%) say the people’s will should have more sway. A significant minority (32%), however, believes the Bible should be more important." (http://www.pewforum.org/2006/08/24/many-americans-uneasy-with-mix-of-religion-and-politics/#intro) This is not that incredibly different from the claim about Muslims except that in this case you can be sure the 32% meant imposing law on ALL Americans.  If you were to poll Trump supporters ONLY, I suspect that the percentage would exceed 51%.

You don't have to like ANY religion or ideology (such as liberalism, conservatism, fascism, communism, socialism, libertarianism, etc.) to allow those that hold those beliefs to retain their rights under the Constitution.  You don't have to like Islam to oppose the travel ban - you need to love justice and equality under the law.

Freedom of Speech or Cowardice?

By now, you probably have heard about the Trump supporter who asked the candidate a question at a campaign event, and in the process revealed some startling information.

As per CNN:  "We have a problem in this country. It's called Muslims," an unidentified man who spoke at a question-and-answer town hall event in Rochester, New Hampshire asked the mogul at a rally Thursday night. "You know our current president is one. You know he's not even an American."

A seemingly bewildered Trump interrupted the man, chuckling, "We need this question. This is the first question."

"Anyway, we have training camps growing where they want to kill us," the man, wearing a "Trump" T-shirt, continued. "That's my question: When can we get rid of them?"

"We're going to be looking at a lot of different things," Trump replied. "You know, a lot of people are saying that and a lot of people are saying that bad things are happening. We're going to be looking at that and many other things."  (http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/17/politics/donald-trump-obama-muslim-new-hampshire/)

In my opinion, if someone asks you "how long have you been beating your wife?" you can properly object that it's a loaded question which assumes the conclusion (unless it's true, of course).  The man's question assumes that Obama is a Muslim, that he's not an American, and oh yes, that there are training camps, apparently well known to the man asking the question and therefore well known to the government as well, and that no one is doing anything about them.  And that our country's "problem" are "Muslims."  Not radical jihadist Muslims, no; not terrorist Muslims, nope.  Muslims, period, which, if words mean anything, means ALL Muslims since no distinctions of any kind are made.

Mr. Trump's response accepts all of this by being silent; it is my recollection that when Mr. Trump disagrees with something he hears, he is not bashful about mentioning it. He has been known to interrupt persons who say something he believes is untrue; in fact, it is a trait for him to interrupt others in this way.  Does he not object to anything the man said; wasn't at least some of it untrue as far as Trump knows?

So are we to understand that he really doesn't think Obama is a Muslim and that he does believe Obama is an American.  Or does my memory deceive me?  Wasn't Donald Trump the most vocal and well know "birther" in the world?  Are Muslims the "problem," Mr. Trump?

Trump's explanations in his own tweets later on are a wonder of misdirection and irrationality.  Here are a couple:

"If I would have challenged the man, the media would have accused me of interfering with that man's right of free speech. A no win situation!" ( http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Donald-Trump-Twitter-Iowa-Obama/2015/09/19/id/692389/ )

This is a joke, right?  The Trump supporter had his say, and others have the absolute right to say that, in their opinion, he is wrong.  The First Amendment is NOT immunity to disagreement or criticism of what you've said.  In fact, it is the protection of the right to disagree and criticize to what anyone has said.  Does Donald Trump have any understanding of this?

Here is the other amazing tweet: "Am I morally obligated to defend the president every time somebody says something bad or controversial about him? I don't think so!"  Actually the problem wasn't just that what was said was "bad" or "controversial" - it was that it was untrue and/or bigoted.

When a questioner called Obama an "Arab" at a John McCain campaign event in 2008, McCain DID correct the woman who said it.  He did it politely but clearly and he went as far to say that Obama was a good man and good American.  He was lauded in the press for this correction.  McCain earned much respect with his response.  What negative consequences did he suffer?

Well, apparently McCain DID suffer some consequences.  I suspect that with his reasonable response McCain LOST some of the enthusiasm and votes that Trump has garnered because McCain was not a coward, not a bigot and not a fraud.  Trump, on the other hand, has no problem accepting a statement that paints "Muslims"without any disqualifier as the "problem," that paints Obama as one of those problem Muslims and states that the President of the United States is not an American.  To hold one's tongue in the face of such a question is not free speech - it's cowardice.

Duck Dynasty: Religion is no excuse for bigotry

"Duck Dynasty" patriarch and reality TV star Phil Robertson recently said in response to a question during a magazine interview about what, in his mind, is sinful, "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men."  Mr. Robertson ignores the fact that bestiality is certainly possible and probably more prevalent among heterosexuals than homosexuals; he simply equates homosexuality with perversion without offering any evidence or ethical reasoning other than his own admittedly bible-based moral code. 

This blind obedience to a primitive moral code is not unique or rare; many religious fundamentalists such as Sarah Palin, a former candidate for Vice President, voiced their support for Mr. Robertson.

Palin wrote, "Free speech is endangered species; those 'intolerants' hatin' & taking on Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing personal opinion take on us all."

This is pure hypocrisy; Ms. Palin has no problem criticizing others with whom she disagrees.  She offers no First Amendment excuse for them when she does so.

Palin and Robertson are both also under the misconception that religious belief allows one to be unethical towards others, in this case, homosexuals.  Religion is no excuse, however. If your religion condones unjustified bigotry, it is a bigoted religion.  Also, the First Amendment does not shield one from criticism of one's religious beliefs - indeed, the First Amendment protects the rights of all to criticize religion or anything else.

Hopefully, at some point, enough in society will come to choose an ethical approach in their lifestance as opposed to merely hiding behind belief and obedience; that is when real moral progress will be made.