Politically Correct Protocol, What a Concept?

I was reading a NowPublic post, “Hasan Had Disturbing History of Islamic Extremist Views,” based on ABC News reports and flagged by Roy C, Vancouver. In it, the article wondered if politically correct protocol somehow impeded more invasive intervention that could have averted the Ft. Hood catastrophe.

I decided to explore the notion further. A post at WorldReference.com by Maria is interesting because she suggests that using euphemisms might be the same thing as being politically correct.

Let’s face it, in today’s world of 1.8 billion Muslims, and the prospect that 1-10% could be radical Islamists, that translate to between 18 and 180 million prospective Islamic terrorists. Stretch the percentage of the universe a little more and you could have a population of terrorists of this ilk that is larger than the population of the USA. That is significant, don’t you think?

We can expect our military, homeland security and law enforcement officials to nuance around such terms as profiling, but in the end, I think we want them to do just that – develop profiles of people who might have a propensity for terrorism based on known attributes that correlate with the threat. This is done already to screen airline passengers. Extrapolate more, and you can catch terrorists in the act of plotting and planning. That is what I hope the collective protectors are doing.

At issue is how Americans and its government are supposed to treat religious people and their faiths. As I have suggested before, it is possible that a faith or a sect within a faith, to possess beliefs that are misaligned with American values for freedom and individual liberty that they are simply operating outside the law. At that point, it does not matter what one calls the organization, religious or otherwise, it becomes an enemy of the people and therefore, an enemy of the state.

When politicians say such things as Americans might have to give up some of their freedom in order to increase their protection, I think that this includes being less tolerant of organizations that are themselves intolerant of individuals and their freedom. This is surely ironic and a Catch-22, don’t you think?