Today's Washington Times carries a disappointing editorial, calling on law enforcement to engage in religious discrimination (my emphasis):
Not all political and religious affiliations are equally legitimate, and some need to be targeted. Terrorism is a form of political activity, the very kind that the [Joint Terrorism Task Force] system was designed to counter. It's no surprise that people who espouse radical, violent political acts are being watched; that is the purpose of the task force. When confronting groups motivated by a terrorist ideology based on Islam, religious affiliations have to be taken into account. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but a radical Muslim terrorist is a Muslim by definition. Ignoring that fact deprives the FBI of key insights into the motivations, objectives and tactics of members of this violent subculture.
I'm not in the business of law enforcement, and not going to start commenting on it as if I am. But I would hope that when confronting groups "motivated by a terrorist ideology based on Islam", it's the terrorist ideology that would be taken into account. After all, that sounds like the frightening part of the equation. A "radical Muslim" may in fact be Muslim, but it's the "radical" part that should be concerning, no matter what faith such a person purports to follow.
Targeting faith groups sounds like what the Times editorial board is ultimately suggesting here. And without any indication of violent objectives, that for me is a bridge too far. Like all other Americans, peaceful Muslims should be able to practice their faith without fear of government intrusion.
