Skip to main content

Witch Hunts

The thing that I most enjoy about watching Star Trek: The Next Generation is the philosophical insight that is granted.  The writer makes so many good points in every episode.  I just watched an episode called "The Drumhead" (Season 4, Episode 21).  In this episode, a Klingon is discovered to be a spy for the Romulans (who are at war with the Federation).  At that point in time, a witch hunt ensues to try to capture any of this man's confederates.  The admiral conducting the trial even accuses Captain Picard of being a spy.

The entire time (including before he was ever accused), Picard urges caution and insists that people must remain innocent until proven guilty, and yet those conducting the investigation declare people guilty and go about trying to prove that guilt through means of intimidation and circumstantial evidence.  At the very end, Picard makes the point that even though civilization has advanced so far, humans are still susceptible to fear and witch hunts.

There was a time when there were actual witch hunts--people accused of witchcraft burned to death.  There were witch hunts for communists during the last century.  People even known to associate with known communists were accused and found guilty without evidence.  And now, with the hysteria that we have created in our society over terrorism, we have the same problem occurring.  Just this year, President Obama signed into law the NDAA 2012.  Among other things, this act enabled the military to indefinitely detain someone suspected of being a terrorist without ever having the right to a trial.  This has to be one of the most grievous attacks on the United States Constitution since its original signing.

And yet, many (even most) of the people I talk to actually believe that this terrorism hysteria is real.  That there's an actual threat of terrorists living among us and trying to destroy our way of life.  Sure, there is the possibility that some people are terrorists (clearly acts of terror are committed).  However, that should never be justification to revoke people's natural rights.  The right to a fair trial is guaranteed by the Constitution.  The NDAA completely overrides that.  Gone is the day of "innocent until proven guilty".  But, the scary thing is that this act doesn't even change that to "guilty until proven innocent", it jumps all the way to "guilty forever".  This is no way to live our lives.  This is wholly un-American.  Even if the only people who are ever detained by this act are all legitimately guilty of terrorism, it is still immoral and unethical to convict them and detain them without trial.

I am impressed with how insightful Gene Roddenberry (the writer of Star Trek) was.  I feel like I gain so much wisdom when I watch--especially when I watch Captain Picard.  Because of this television show, I will forever see Patrick Stewart as a man of high principles and nearly endless wisdom.  Let us learn from our history.  Let us learn why the principles of individual freedom are so important and how easily those freedoms can be, and have been time and time again, taken away.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Do you really believe?

This is Richard Dawkin's talk from yesterday's Reason Rally in Washington DC.  He makes several good points, but the one that stuck out to me the most was when he told people that they should challenge someone when they say they're religious.  The example he gave is when someone says they're Catholic, ask them if they really  believe that when a priest blesses a wafer that it actually turns into the body of Christ, or that the wine actually turns into his blood.  So, this post will be dedicated to me asking any of my reader base who are religious, do you really  believe what your religions teach? For those who are Christian (any denomination thereof), Do you really believe every word of the Bible to be the word of god?  If so, read every word of the Bible and then come back and answer the question again. Do you really believe that a snake tricked Eve into eating fruit that made her suddenly unfit to live in the paradisiacal garden god had just made for her? Do y

Hitchens v god

I'm rather ashamed to admit that I just recently discovered Christopher Hitchens. And, while I normally add my own thoughts and commentary to videos when I post them here, in nearly every Hitchens video that I've encountered, I have not a single word to add. He is so articulate and does such a good job of presenting his case that I couldn't possibly add anything to it.  I would definitely be interested if any of my readers have any comments to make in regards to what Hitches says in this video. Enjoy.  

The fundamental theorem of atheism

I think many times, with all the discussion of religion, science, atheism, etc, it can be easy to lose sight of the real purpose of what one is trying to accomplish.  Of course, this can happen in any discussion.  But, one of those ever-famous text-images found on Facebook caught my attention today.  (I do think it's funny, but from what I have seen a basic fact about human psychology, that people are more likely to read text when it is in an image--even if the image is purely text--than when it is just simply written text.  I wonder if they've done any studies on that.) So, to bring my own focus back to where it should be, here is what I will call the "fundamental theorem of atheism".  Yes, that's a very mathematical title--every branch (and sub-branch) of mathematics has a "fundamental theorem".  So, here it is for atheism.   The burden of proof lies on those who claim that there is a god to produce evidence of its existence .  So, here's the ima