Author Archives: ryang

American Muslims have been the target of hateful political rhetoric for many years, but that rhetoric has taken a turn towards even more hate. Donald Trump, the Republic candidate for President of the United States, has inflamed public opinion against all Muslims, even those who have been loyal and patriotic American citizens. He says he will take action against Muslims in order to create a safer America. However, religious intolerance is wrong because it infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens and it hinders the development of a healthy society.

First, Mr. Trump argues that an immigration ban on all Muslims is necessary to provide security for our country.  He has also made statements which characterize American Muslims as suspect and dangerous for our society. He appears to favor Christianity over other religions, these type of statements seem to inflame opinions against American Muslims.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/06/donald_trump_declares_war_on_american_muslims.html

For instance, last year, a group of American Muslims visited Austin to meet their state legislators.  They were met with hostility and hate. Some state legislators even refused to meet with them.

https://actforamericahouston.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/austin-texas-observations-on-texas-muslim-capitol-day/

The government has no business interfering with the religious beliefs of individuals. The government must be limited to protecting life, liberty and property of its members. Muslims should be subject to the same laws and penalties as members of any other religions, but they should not be discriminated against or persecuted solely because they are Muslim. Religion should not be the basis for enforcing laws.

Additionally, religion should be concerned with saving souls and not be engaged in political policy. The fact that Islam is a minority religion in our country does not mean that Muslims do not have civil rights. Everyone has the right to participate in our political process, but our government should not take the side of one religion just because it is the religion of the majority. Membership in a church is voluntary, and a church is free to decide who is a member. In contrast, every individual has certain natural rights under our Constitution. No one may be expelled or lose these natural rights. For this reason, we cannot give any one church the authority to control our government. Every individual has natural rights under our constitution.

Our government does have a duty to provide security for our country, but this responsibility does not give the government the right to discriminate against law-abiding citizens. The state also has a duty to protect life, liberty and property of all its citizens. The government must guaranty the civil rights of all, and not just the majority. Subjecting Muslim Americans to discrimination and persecution solely on the basis of their religion could eventually lead to religious violence. A government which promotes violence instead of peace is not capable of protecting life, liberty and property.

Also, our country should embrace diversity and toleration. Every individual must be given the opportunity to participate in our society. Wars and violence are the result of intolerance and the need of those in power to impose their will on others. The radical Muslims who are waging war on our country demonstrate the dangers of intolerance. Although we must protect our country, we should not adopt the type of intolerance shown by enemies. We should not destroy our own values for peace and civil liberties by unjustly discriminating a minority religion.

In conclusion, churches should be teaching tolerance and not intolerance. If all individuals accepted toleration, then much of the violence and misery in our world could be eliminated. This, the calls of some in our country to discriminate against Muslims are wrong.

The idea of civil forfeiture violates the basic ideas of property rights which form the basis of a government by consent. Although society, through a fairly elected government, has some responsibility to protect other members of society, a person’s property should not be taken arbitrarily by government officials without due process and without a legitimate government interest.

First, in civil forfeiture, a police officer may seize property the officer suspects has an illegal purpose. For example, this could include a house or car in which drugs are found even if the owner of the property was not involved in a crime. The forfeiture does not require any type of probable cause or conviction. Additionally, the government only has to have a civil, instead of criminal – beyond a reasonable doubt – level of proof. Current news reports are full of examples of greedy law enforcement officials using civil forfeiture laws to unfairly take property from citizens, even law-abiding citizens. A government which starts to take away property from its citizens has gone far beyond its limited purpose of protecting life, liberty and property.

To give a better understanding of the criticism of civil forfeiture laws, I have posted links to a video critical description by John Oliver on Last Week Tonight and articles from the liberal Texas Observer and the more conservative New American.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks

https://www.texasobserver.org/preying-innocent-civil-forfeiture/

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/20819-texas-representative-stands-up-to-civil-forfeiture

I agree that the government has some responsibility to protect members of our society. And, sometimes that means removing property that endangers law-abiding members of society. For instance, the government could lawfully destroy a house that creates some type of serious danger for others. As a result, in some cases, we have consented to government authority to take a person’s property, liberty and even life. But the authority to take a person’s life, liberty or property is limited by the consent of the governed. I know that these civil forfeiture laws were passed by an elected government, but this law has become a tool for the government to take property away from people who are not guilty of a crime. The only purpose in many cases is to create additional funds for the government. Law enforcement officials should not be allowed unchecked discretion to take a person’s property. Our government must be limited to protection of property rights, and discretionary civil forfeiture simply allows the government to take property from citizens and to give it to the government. It is very different from the protection of life, liberty and property which is the basic foundation – and limit – to a just government.

The reasonable limits to civil forfeiture laws are set out in our society’s basic contract, which is set out in our Constitution. The government may not take any person’s property without due process of law. Members of our society have natural rights, including the right to protect our property. We consented to give up some rights to form a limited government, with the main purpose of protecting our property laws. Now this government power is being used to unjustly take property from its citizens.

And finally, I understand that a person may forfeit his or her rights to property in certain situations. However, many of these civil forfeitures are done in the name of the War on Drugs. Often the forfeiture is claimed to be justified over small amounts of recreational drugs or paraphernalia, and sometimes even for cash in the house or car. Clearly, the amount of protection for society does not justify the taking of a person’s property.