Religious and racial profiling will conserve life, states Muslim activist

Georgetown University journalism professor and Muslim reform activist Nomani thinks that United States air terminals have sided with political correctness for far too long. A new, more pragmatic approach to airport security is needed. In a recent op-ed piece within the Daily Beast, Nomani argues that racial profiling and spiritual profiling are the most practical way to deal with the increasing number of Muslim terrorist threats. Nomani’s criticism of the Transportation Security Administration’s present means of handling homeland security is very obvious.

Cause of racial profiling is spiritual philosophy

Nomani explains that racial profiling within the U.S. is necessary. This is because organizations will commit terrorist attacks because of spiritual ideology. There have been a ton of United States of America incidents starting with 9/11 and going to recent potential car bomb in Portland, Ore. Nomani points out that Muslims have taken part in most of these attacks. Nomani believes that airport security have a href=”http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2010/11/27/tsa-screening-backlash/”>proper response that ought to be done. Racial and spiritual profiling is his suggestion. Rational profiling would be what would happen. This is what Nomani points out.

"Profiling doesn't have to be about discrimination, persecution or harassment. We are not arguing that the TSA should send anyone named Mohammad to be water-boarded somewhere between the first-class lounge and the Pizza Hut," writes Nomani.

Nomani recommends threat assessment with racial profiling

Nomani explains that there is no concern for whoever has nothing to hide. She said, "Profile me. Profile my family." In a debate about the racial profiling issue recently. She said that "we in the Muslim community have failed to police ourselves." That is why she is okay with profiling. Following recognizable "trouble signs" for terrorism via profiling would solve the problem, Nomani argues.

30 percent were undecided at the beginning of the debate while 37 supported religious and racial profiling and 33 percent were against it in the audience. There was only 11 percent undecided after the debate. 49 percent were in favor of racial profiling and 40 percent were against it. The debate seemed academic. That was good. It isn't known whether racial profiling is something that might end up really taking place or not.

Citations

BYU

law2.byu.edu/jpl/Vol%2017.1/Macdonald%20pdf.pdf

The Daily Beast

thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-29/airport-security-lets-profile-muslims/?cid=hp:mainpromo5

Do the benefits outweigh the costs?

youtube.com/watch?v=Hmqok62n1Wo