actually what is sounds like is that some of us would rather follow the postulates of an ideology, that all people are the same, that values and beliefs are irrelevant
so it becomes necessary to reach a conclusion required by that ideology in total disregard of any FACTS, or factual basis
so without knowing anything about a particular ideology, we can disregard whatever ideology is held
so whatever any people may think, believe or act upon, they are "just like us"
any one of us could have done it -- my Episcopalian blue-haired granny, my Presbyterian ultra-WASP sailing & SCUBA buddy, my Roman Catholic Hispanic FB, my Lutheran mixed race niece (still a toddler)
oh, my
fortunately the law enforcement authorities are not on this wavelength, and do take steps to monitor along factual, realistic profiles
Dress it up and rationalise all you like, but the above is among of your most insightful ... in that it reaffirms what I have long thought about you.
As for the underlying premise behind your post, it's primarily nonsense.
Ideology [or religion] is
learned. Behaviour based upon that learning is
conscious and deliberate. That you would seek to exclude your granny [et al] on the same grounds you would condemn others is no different than assuming anyone of [for example] Muslim faith is
automatically worthy of suspicion.
Unless you have compelling evidence that elderly female Christians and SCUBA divers
don't commit crime?
I'm
not saying that one's [personal/religious/political] ideology stands apart from other aspects of one's person [age/gender/ethnicity etc.] or that these are of necessity in any way linked other than through choice and of course the latter are beyond
personal control anyway - but that it's dangerous [to say the least] to formulate risk assessments, or reach character judgements based on
either in isolation.
Profiling (or in this case
judging) based on
actual behaviour I have less problem with, but profiling
solely on the basis of ethnicity [or religion] is rather different. Of course it's not just you, there are plenty like you ... and therein lies a root cause of so many of societal problems.
That said, I'm not ignorant of the fact that the line between the two is often blurred, but I maintain that it's important, vital in fact to distinguish between the
person and the
ideology, or to recognise when one has failed to do so.
In other words, it's not what what we
are that defines us, and renders us worthy of suspicion (or not) but what we
do. This is a vital distinction.
Stereotyping
has value, in many respects it's intrinsic to our nature, but it should
not when used as a blunt instrument when formulating policy or legislation.