Common Sense Policies: Balancing the Rights of the Individual against National Security
The Islamic religion has been under great scrutiny in the United States over the past fourteen years and has been a popular subject of the Presidential Debates this week. A large number of United States citizens have been driven to a point of distrusting their fellow citizens that practice Islam. This distrust is being answered by some Presidential candidates with proposals of policies such as increasing background checks on Muslim refugees and increasing surveillance on American mosques and even shutting down mosques deemed as threats. Those that oppose these sort of policies cite the right to freedom of religion and the right people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. (The right to privacy)
With the threat of Islamic terrorism that faces our nation today, implementing these policies is just common sense, right? If these mosques are innocent, they have nothing to hide. They should have no issue forfeiting their right to privacy in order to help our country to win the war on terror. We're not against them practicing their religion, we just want to make sure they're practicing it in a way that keeps America's best interests in tact. We know that Islam itself isn't dangerous, we're merely concerned with radical Islam that is used explicitly for killing people. All of this can easily be achieved with thorough background checks and increased surveillance. Maybe we could even regulate which parts of the religion whose practice should and should not be allowed.
Some people may agree with these ideas. Some people may be appalled by them. Some may recognize this sort of rhetoric from the gun control debate. The notation of this rhetoric being used in the gun control debate is intriguing because the same arguments for and against each issue are used by opposing parties with roles reversed. The progressive left will argue that all of these policies violate the individuals' rights to freedom of religion and to privacy. Then, they will turn around and suggest comparable policies to increase gun control measures. While the "conservative right" will use these arguments as above to combat radical Islam. Then, assert that progressive gun control measures violate the individuals' right to keep and bear arms. However, they do not mention the violation of the right to privacy.
Candidates on either side of each argument may acknowledge the infringement on the respective rights, and they may defend this infringement by invoking national security using their favorite fear-mongering tactic. Their voice will drop to a soft, comforting tone and they will reference their favorite sad story of someone they know that was recently affected by the issue. They will stretch the facts of this story and recite it in such a way that garners the biggest emotional response. Their goal is not to enforce the logic of their argument. It is to make voters feel like this candidate truly cares about this issue and they can be trusted not to abuse the powers their policies will grant them.
Studies that show gun control measures do not prevent gun crime are starting to come to light. It's hard to believe that these same concepts could be applied to religion without experiencing the same lack of results. We hear time and time again that legislating gun control harms law-abiding gun owners more than criminals. How can we expect to see different results when legislating religion? Especially when we know that the counter-terrorism policies that are currently in place have failed to prevent multiple attacks on U.S. citizens and similar policies have failed in other countries as well. Why should we believe that increasing these measures will make a difference?
The truth is, there's no way to prevent every terrorist attack. We could background check and spy on peaceful, law abiding citizens all we want. Extremists will find a way to pass the background check and plan attacks right under our noses while we do nothing more than impose on innocent lives. We already have a due process to use when an individual is suspected of committing, or planning to commit, a crime. A warrant allows government agencies to access all the information they would ever need to investigate an individual. It may require more work, but the requirement of a warrant protects our right to privacy and prevents us from being harassed by an corrupt government.
We need to remember that one right is not more or less important than any other. Our right to privacy is just as important as our rights of free speech, religion, to keep and bear arms, and the right due process. None of these rights are nullified just because other citizens fear or misunderstand them. It is often said that the second amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) was written to protect the rest of our rights. This insinuates its importance over all the others. However, freedom of speech is just a crucial in this matter. As is privacy, due process, and the right to a speedy and public trial with legal representation. These rights work together to protect each other. We as a people must consistently defend every right else we eventually lose them all. Rather than battling terrorism by taking the rights of the American people, why don't we try freedom?