Pissing Match, with Bullets

image from bookwormroom.com

Our problem with gun violence is that the people who defend unfettered access to, and carrying around, guns in this country, across the spectrum of society, far too often seem to believe that it is acceptable, EVEN DESIRABLE, to shoot people who, in their minds, scare them in some way or otherwise don't adequately conform to how they think someone else should behave.

Far too RARELY are these shootings genuinely and unavoidably life threatening when the escalation to lethal force occurs. The very essence of the problem, however much some of the gun huggers deny it, is the desire to escalate violence and force because they WANT TO DO SO, their very identity, including sometimes their gender identity as masculine, manly men, depends on it.

Just having a gun with you, on you, or in your hands, messes with your perception and increases your paranoia and sense of threats, which in turn fuels the escalation, in addition to the other factors fueling escalation - like conservative authoritarianism.

From a 2012 Notre Dame University study, via ZDNet, demonstrating that having or holding a gun makes you see bad things that aren't there:

Study: Carrying a gun can make you more paranoid
...the researchers subjected volunteers to a series of five experiments in which they were shown multiple images of people on a computer screen and determined whether the person was holding a gun or a neutral object such as a soda can or cell phone. Subjects did this while holding either a toy gun or a neutral object such as a foam ball.

The researchers varied the situation in each experiment — such as having the people in the images sometimes wear ski masks, changing the race of the person in the image or changing the reaction subjects were to have when they judged the person in the image to hold a gun. Regardless of the situation, the study showed that responding with a gun created a bias in which observers reported a gun being present more often than they did responding with a ball. Thus, by virtue of affording the subject the opportunity to use a gun, he or she was more likely to classify objects in a scene as a gun and, as a result, to engage in threat-induced behavior, such as raising a firearm to shoot.

The researchers showed that the ability to act is a key factor in the effects by showing that while simply letting observers see a nearby gun didn't influence their behavior, holding and using the gun did.

The science tells us that those who carry guns around, legally or otherwise, get into more conflicts and confrontations. From the most recent study on gun ownership and aggression by Jeffery Swanson by way of the Huff Po:

Study: People Who Own a Lot of Guns Are More Likely to Get in Fights, Carry Guns Outside the Home
The new study compares rates of impulsive, angry behavior with access to guns. Swanson and his research colleagues asked 5,653 respondents to answer questions about their own behavior, and also asked these same research subjects if they owned and/or carried guns. The subjects lived in cities, suburbs and rural areas throughout the United States, and roughly one-third stated that they owned or had access to firearms, which seems to be what we consider the national firearm ownership rate to be today.

Every respondent was asked whether they had tantrums or angry outbursts; broke something in anger; lost their temper and got involved in physical fights. These are classic indicators of impulsive, angry behavior, with the tantrums/outbursts being the least serious, the fights being the most serious and the breaking of some object in between. Both the owners and non-owners of guns reported engaging in all three types of behaviors, with tantrums being three times as common as physical fights for both groups, and the percentage of gun owners and non-gun owners engaging in any of the three anger indicators being about the same.

What struck me as I read the survey results was that overall, there was not a great difference between gun owners and non-gun owners regarding to what degree they admitted engaging in any form of impulsive, angry behavior. Where the difference was clearly pronounced was among the 5 percent (roughly 290 people out of 5,600) who admitted to owning 11 guns or more, which was the only gun-owning group whose penchant for getting into fights was significantly higher than people who owned no guns at all. For that matter the percentage of the 11+ gun-owning group to get into physical altercations was substantially higher than gun folks who owned fewer guns.

Where the number of guns owned by individuals seemed to be a real risk issue can be found in the correlation between number of guns owned, engaging in any of the three anger indicators and carrying a gun outside the home. The good news in this survey was that less than 5 percent of the respondents reported that they walked around with a gun. The not-so-good news is that folks who owned six or more guns and carried a concealed weapon reported that they engaged in at least one of the three impulsive behaviors four times more frequently than persons who owned five or fewer guns.
This is the first study I have seen that finds a correlation between numbers of guns owned and a propensity to carry one of them around. As such, it undercuts the usual pro-CCW argument that people carry guns to defend themselves against crime. ...

Here's another observation: aggressive, combative, ANGRY PEOPLE, WITHOUT GUNS, DID NOT SHOOT, or THREATEN TO SHOOT OTHER PEOPLE, whatever else they did.

We have a failed gun culture, fueled in large part by right wing glorification of vigilantism, glorifying people taking the law into their own hands rather than leaving law conflicts and disputes to the courts and law enforcement. Criminal activity emulates and mirrors that thinking and authoritarian social structure of coercion and conformity.

We saw that failure of gun culture in action this past week, in the shooting in a Lafayette, Louisiana theater and in a case of Florida road rage that escalated and ended in an unarmed man being shot in the back three times, in front of his wife, child and grandchild, and then held them hostage at gun point. The shooter was the kind of gun owner the NRA and other pro-gun groups tell us is safe and law abiding; he had a concealed carry permit. This was emphatically an avoidable shooting;the shooter could have turned the conflict over to law enforcement. The shooter instead drove PAST a police station, and like George Zimmerman who killed Trayvon Martin, ignored the directives of the 911 operator about engaging in further escalation of the conflict.


In the same week as the mass shooting in Louisiana, there were five other mass killings that did not receive extensive media coverage. Only one of them involved stabbings; the others were all shootings.

Individually or as a group, the right embraces as a part of their ideology taking the law into their own hands, as noted in this article from the Examiner looks at this as not only a modern phenomenon, but as an historic one to present:

Armed and dangerous: Right wing vigilantism in American history
...Contrary to the popular phrase, an armed society is not always a polite society. American history is full of examples of the perils of allowing armed citizens to take the law into their own hands. Vigilantism has an ugly history in this country. The fact that the loudest advocates today for arming the populace come from those on the political far right, should give us pause for concern. The tradition of vigilantism in this nation is a history of upholding xenophobia, racism and white privilege by lethal force. From lynch mobs to riots to extrajudicial executions, that history undermines the logic for unqualified support for the second amendment.

It extends not only to matters of personal conflict, but to issues of imaginary personal honor and insult, and to political disagreements. An example of the latter would be the numerous failed revolutions of right wing crazies that believe they are going to rise up and overthrow the government for imaginary wrongs, particularly the lunatic militia movements. When they are angry, the gun nuts, the right wingers, want to empower themselves with lethal force when they are unable to get their way through persuasion.

This right to coerce and compel anyone who violates a right wing norm is a core facet or characteristic of Right Wing Authoritarianism.

Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms, and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who don't adhere to them. They value uniformity and are in favor of using group authority, including coercion, to achieve it.

One of the components of Right Wing Authoritarianism is aggression:
Authoritarian aggression — a general aggressiveness directed against deviants, outgroups, and other people that are perceived to be targets according to established authorities.

Combine that with poor cognitive abilities associated with RWA, and you have a recipe for disaster when you arm them with lethal force:

According to research by Altemeyer, right-wing authoritarians tend to exhibit cognitive errors and symptoms of faulty reasoning. Specifically, they are more likely to make incorrect inferences from evidence and to hold contradictory ideas that result from compartmentalized thinking. They are also more likely to uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs, and they are less likely to acknowledge their own limitations

Sadly, too often the gun huggers embrace vigilantism over the authority of law enforcement. We see that thinking expressed by the Louisiana movie theater shooter, who targeted liberals, mostly women, watching the Amy Schumer movie. We saw it in January of 2014, with the fatal shooting of a man by a retired police captain, for texting briefly to his young daughter during the previews of a movie theater in Florida. The victim of the shooting didn't do what the gun carrier wanted him to do as quickly as he wanted him to do it. We see it in the recent road rage shooting in Florida, where a concealed carry permit holder shot an unarmed man in the back as he was trying to leave, and threatened three other people. We see it in the higher rates of gun violence in states with more guns and with more lax gun control. Gun violence is endemic to gun possession without sufficient regulation and restriction.

Time to end our gun culture, before it puts an end to any more innocent or mostly innocent people. Our gun culture is an epic failure, a destructive and dangerous social force, that looms large -- as large as the GOP elephant in the room. Time for the guns AND the GOP which enables and facilitates the gun violence as part of their political exploitation of the worst elements on the right, to GO.

Dear Governor Haley, about that Confederate flag that is still flying on your state house grounds

About those confederate flags, and images of flags -- ANY confederate flags -- NO, pretending they are innocently ONLY about southern pride or heritage is not a compromise, it does not work, it is not EVER acceptable (with the exception of historic re-enactment). 

On Monday June 22, Haley held a presser where she apprehensively called for the S.C. state legislature to take down the flag -- if they want to, kinda sorta.  If they don't want to do so, she offered no alternative to get that flag out of the faces of people oppressed by it.

If she had actual courage and conviction, Governor Haley, would take it down by executive order, and let happen as a result whatever needs to happen, including legal challenges -- and there are plenty ready, willing and able to make those challenges to get the flag down and keep it gone.

Moreover, I thought  Haley looked scared to death making her little speech, and probably she should be scared; scared of the political fall out from voters and donors, scared of the possibility the next white racist bullets are shooting at her. 

Let's be candid shall we, about Haley's ties to the same White Supremacists who are still claiming that alleged mass shooter Dylann Roof had justifiable grievances.  She has been in state politics too long not to know who these people were.  The only real 'compromise', to use a word that has flown around this controversy like the confederate flag in a high wind, has been with integrity and support for civil rights.  The following certainly shows how bad those people Governor Haley calls good really are.

From the Charleston City Paper back in late May of 2013, just two short years ago:

Nikki Haley appoints member of white power organization to campaign

Roan Garcia-Quintana is board member of Council of Concerned Citizens

The Post and Courier just dropped a doozy of a story: Gov. Nikki Haley has appointed an alleged member of a white supremacist organization to her campaign. The man in question: Roan Garcia-Quintana. The group: the Council of Conservative Citizens.
The P&C reports:

Gov. Nikki Haley is under attack from the National Jewish Democratic Council because one of her campaign co-chairs has ties to a hate group. Haley appointed a tea party activist named Roan Garcia-Quintana of Greenville as one of her 164 campaign co-chairs.
The Southern Poverty Law Center issued a recent report noting Garcia-Quintana is a member of the Council of Conservative Citizens. National Jewish Democratic Council executive director Aaron Keyak said the council has links to anti-Semitism.

Now, how did Tim Pearson, Haley's one-time chief of staff and current campaign manager, respond. Did he say that Garcia-Quintana had been given the boot? Did he apologize to the National Jewish Democratic Council, the NAACP, and, well, anybody who hates racist assholes? Did he admit that the Haley campaign had unwittingly appointed an alleged member of a hate group to the team? Nope. Pearson did what those in the Haley camp always do: He pointed the finger at someone else.
The P&C reports:

Asked about the National Jewish Democratic Council’s criticism, Haley campaign manager Tim Pearson said it “is clearly ginned up by some outside group.”

Well, Tim, this is more than a controversy ginned up by some outside group. It's a real fucking controversy. See, if the Council of Conservative Citizens had their way, Nikki Haley wouldn't be living in the United States, much less in the South Carolina governor's mansion.
According to the CofCC's Statement of Principles, written by former Washington Times columnist and racist Sam Francis:

We believe the United States is a European country and that Americans are part of the European people. We believe that the United States derives from and is an integral part of European civilization and the European people and that the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character. We therefore oppose the massive immigration of non-European and non-Western peoples into the United States that threatens to transform our nation into a non-European majority in our lifetime. We believe that illegal immigration must be stopped, if necessary by military force and placing troops on our national borders; that illegal aliens must be returned to their own countries; and that legal immigration must be severely restricted or halted through appropriate changes in our laws and policies. We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called “affirmative action” and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races.

Yeah, there's nothing to see here, but Tim Pearson and the Haley campaign trying to wipe egg off their faces.
Oh, and one more thing. S.C. Democratic Party chair Dick Harpootlian is a douchebag too. Seriously, Dems. Do you really want a guy who says that Nikki Haley should go “to wherever the hell she came from” as your leader? It's about time you gave this intolerant, homophobic asshole the boot.
Update: The Southern Poverty Law Center first broke this story two days ago. Here's what they have to say:

In anticipation of her 2014 re-election campaign, the Tea Party darling [Nikki Haley] has put together a 164-member steering committee comprising folks from all 46 of her state’s counties. And on that list is one “Republican leader” and Tea Party activist named Roan Garcia-Quintana of Greenville.
The name won’t ring many bells outside of the South Carolina political world. But he’s better known in white nationalist, anti-immigrant and neo-Confederate circles.
Garcia-Quintana is a lifetime member and current board member of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), which is listed as a white nationalist hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The CCC is the linear descendant of the old White Citizens Councils, which were formed in the 1950s and 1960s to battle school desegregation in the South, and has evolved into a crudely racist organization. Its website, for example, has published pictures comparing pop singer Michael Jackson to an ape and referred to blacks as “a retrograde species of humanity.”

The SPLC adds:
Garcia-Quintana is also a rabid nativist, even though he’s a naturalized citizen who was born in Havana. He’s executive director of the anti-immigrant group Americans Have Had Enough, based in Mauldin, S.C., where he lives. At the 2008 CCC conference held in Sheffield, Ala., Garcia-Quintana referred to Latino immigration as an “illegal alien invasion.” In September 2006, Garcia-Quintana’s nativist organization received proceeds from a barbecue fundraiser featuring former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado. Tancredo, who was one of the most virulently anti-immigrant members of Congress, was listed as honorary chairman of Americans Have Had Enough and is currently listed on the group’s website as the “Past Honorary Chairman."...

Although Cuban by birth, Garcia-Quintana does not consider himself Latino. His ancestors, he says, were Spaniards and this makes him white. He refers to himself as “Havana born, Savannah raised” and as a “Confederate Cuban.”

When YOU, Governor Haley claim that electing an Indian American woman, somehow FIXES or changes the history of that flag, you were wrong, desperately wrong.  It is incomprehensible how you think your personal experience somehow negated or rewrote the rest of much more significant history.  That is too low a bar for considering racism resolved.  Especially when your own opposition from your own conservative party engaged in racial slurs against you and against black Americans, notably the President, without any apparent consequences for his bigotry.  This is symptomatic of your state party, governor.  These are the people you are defending for flying the confederate flags.

From 'the State' back in June 2010:

Knotts' slur stirs the Haley storm

Lexington state Sen. Jake Knotts called political rival and Republican gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley a “raghead” on an Internet political talk show Thursday evening.
The term is a slur typically used against Arabs or other ethnic groups who wear turbans or headdresses. Haley, a state representative from Lexington, is the child of Indian immigrants.
“We already got one raghead in the White House,” Knotts said. “We don’t need another in the Governor’s Mansion.”
According to those present and watching the show, “Pub Politics,” Knotts also talked at length about Haley’s parents’ religion and her family. Haley was raised as a Sikh, but converted to Methodist and has said she attends both services. “Pub Politics” host Wesley Donehue said the video will be posted today.
Haley’s religion was raised as an issue during her first S.C. House run in 2004, when anonymous fliers claimed — inaccurately — that she was a Hindu.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article14385950.html#storylink=cpy

ead more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article14385950.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article14385950.html#storylink=cpy

Pretty much what Haley's statements asserts is that you and a few others like Governor Jindal got yours, so screw anyone else. 

You got yours, governor...but for how much longer?  How long until these racists throw you under the bus as their enemy, as the evil 'other' for forcing the issue of the confederate flag and for not upholding or giving cover to their racism?

Apparently Haley expects us to pretend that there is no continuing discrimination against immigrants, like your family, in America who have become citizens.  What that tends to represent is not so much that you are genuinely accepted fully as it represents a lack of political talent in those respective states as alternatives. 

Neither of Haley or Jindal are actually very popular, even with your own narrow political colleagues; but conservative efforts at voter suppression prevented a full and successful participation in the election process.

Apparently Haley expects us all to selectively forget that, for example, when an Indian American woman who was Miss New York, Nina Davulari, became Miss America?  Did Haley somehow MISS the headlines like this one?

From NPR:

Is Nina Davuluri 'American Enough' To Be Miss America?

...It was the 87th year of the competition, and Davuluri was one of two Asian-Americans in the final round. Although she's just a few days into her reign, Davuluri has already made history. She's the first Indian-American Miss America.

Her win highlights how far the U.S. has come, but also how far the country has to go: Racist tweets flooded in on Twitter right after her victory.

It's not like the NPR piece is the only one to address the racism that erupted.  Gawker had a piece as well, as did other media like Jezebel.  They not only underline the continuing anti-Indian American racism (as distinct from Native American racism, that continues as well) but the ignorance of the hatriots when it comes to geography and comparative religion, an ignorance they often display in their failure to master literacy in English spelling.

Racists Are Being Hella Racist Because Miss America Isn't White

...Idiot racists got so mad, they started mixing up Indian, Indian-American, Arab, Muslim, and everything in between. It's (literarily) a most impressive display of dumb mixed with intolerance and even more stupidity. USA! USA! USA!

and to cover how inclusive the 'n' word is when it comes to your own ethnicity, Gov. Haley:

Sand nigger is up #missamerica

             — Chris Black (@ChrisBlack57) September 16, 2013

Don't you have to be American to win Miss AMERICA this bitch is some type of Indian

— BIG GLUTE CURL (@pow_pow65) September 16, 2013

We have a black president and an Asian Miss America. This ain't Merica no more guys.

— ♚Camille (@camillemixon) September 16, 2013

Well we all know Obama bought that pageant! — ♔♚TyAnn♚♔ (@tyann_m) September 16, 2013

HAHAHAH a black girl on Miss America gets voted off and they ask what she is gonna do when she gets back. her reply "GONNA EAT SOME KFCCCC"

— jade lynch (@jadee_lynchh) September 16, 2013

We have a black president and an Asian Miss America. This ain't Merica no more guys.

— ♚Camille (@camillemixon) September 16, 2013

and from the perpetually offensive and inaccurate conservative pandering Fox News talking head:

toddstarnes ✔ @toddstarnes

The liberal Miss America judges won't say this - but Miss Kansas lost because she actually represented American values. #missamerica 9:53 PM - 15 Sep 2013

So, other than establishing "you got yours", Governor Haley, please show us how your election in any way represents a deficiency of racism such that NOW it's ok to fly a symbol of historic through to PRESENT day racism?  You can't, because like a typical conservative, facts are not your friend.

I have to say, I'm particularly offended at ugly white racism towards children because when you can work up a good sweaty hate against children, then you really have some powerful hate going on.

That children from Indian families have dominated the National Spelling Bee for the past 15 years, give or take, is beyond dispute, MPR News reports. An Indian-American child has won every year for the past 7 years, and 11 of the past 15 years.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to sit very well with certain social media users, who have made racist posts — directed at children — about the Indian dominance of the Bee.

Grab a comfy ringside seat, pop some pop corn and sit back to watch the under-the-bus-throwing that is likely to take place next. Governo Haley is an inferior outsider to the racist GOP, and she is no longer being their good little token woman, toen minority puppet, so she will have to go; the only questions left are when and how. Apparently the local media have contacted every member of the South Carolina legislature, the folks Haley is expecting to 'do the right thing' -- and they are refusing to answer, much less declare they will accede to her request.  Reality is about to collide with pretend in the south.

GIGO: Islamophobia, the Ridiculous Radical Religious Right, and Hate Crimes

Remember when....... pick one.......the state of (blank) passed laws banning Sharia law?  There's more coming.

A panel of local Muslims last week denounced the state’s ban on a foreign law designed to bar Sharia or Islamic law.

“Folks were in this hysteria thinking that the minority Muslim Community here in North Carolina could somehow impose our laws, laws taken from the Sharia,” Imam Khalid Griggs of Community Mosque said at a forum on the subject held Tuesday, Jan. 27 at the Polo Recreation Center
...Proponents of the bans say they protect the Constitution, but many disagree. Muslim groups have been joined by Jewish organizations in their opposition to the bans. The Anti-Defamation League in Florida opposed that state’s foreign law ban, which passed last year, for fear of its potential effects on alimony, child custody and even the ability to remarry for Jews who divorce in Israel."

The right is wrong, and has been wrong since Barry Goldwater said this:

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

But Goldwater was correct when he noted, as an ardent opponent of the religious right:

Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies.

Ironically, both quotes are from Goldwater's presidential nomination acceptance speech in San Francisco waaaaay back in 1964.

That right wing extremism has resulted in actual hate crimes.  No, not the shooting of the three Muslim students in North Carolina, but in more clear and obvious and genuine hate crimes like the burning of a Mosque in Ohio by an Indiana man 'riled up' by Fox News.

But there is plenty of hate to go around with out actual violence, like regarding the arson attack on a Muslim Center in Texas, where a person misrepresenting himself to be a fireman used social media to post this:

We have plenty of hate, by the right, from the right, riling up people with purely evil right wing propaganda full of lies.

There is a real tragedy that OPPOSING the evils and abuses of religion, like the ones below, from any and every religion, wherever it occurs, is being miscontrued as a hate crime in what appears to be an ordinary, every day case of gun violence by a man in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, in the tragic shooting deaths of three Muslim students by a man obsessed like George Zimmerman with trying to dominate and intimidate a wide variety of people in his immediate neighborhood with his excessive gun collection, a man who had apparent anger issues.

There are a lot of things to criticize Craig Hicks for, but being an Islamophobe is not one of them, nor should being Anti-Theist.   This is a case where the Left wing media has it wrong, in generalizing that being Anti-religion generally for what is wrong with religious oppression and conflict is the same as being Anti-Muslim.  And of course the Right has it wrong as well.  The promoting of Islamophobia was one of the things Hicks opposed.  Hicks was indicted by a grand jury yesterday, per MSNBC news:

A grand jury indicted a North Carolina man on Monday for the shooting deaths of a newlywed Muslim couple and the wife's sister last week, a court official said.
Craig Hicks, 46, of Chapel Hill, was charged by a grand jury with three counts of first-degree murder and one of discharging a firearm into an occupied dwelling, said Angela Kelly, an assistant clerk of the Durham County Superior Court.
Investigators have said initial findings indicate a dispute over parking prompted the shooting, but they are looking into whether Hicks was motivated by hatred toward the victims because they were Muslim.

A new law to ban Sharia law is being introduced in Montana, following passage in other states, and of course the overturning of such a ban after Oklahoma passed one. From another apparent Islamophobe/ bigot, in the Examiner:

Montana's Senate Bill 199–also called the Primacy of Montana Law–would prohibit the state from abiding by foreign religious customs and foreign laws within the court system. Well there's an idea! A United States that follows United States laws. I'm getting excited already. Maybe we'll even follow the Constitution one day. Janna Taylor, a Republican state senator in Montana, said that the bill is modeled after a similar anti-Sharia law that has been passed by Republicans in three other states so far: Tennessee, Kansas and Louisiana.

Of course, the islamophobe bigots CLAIM, wrongly, that they support the U.S. Constitution as well as their state constitutions. They just forget that we have the supremacy clause, which establishes that where there is a conflict between Federal and State law, Federal law 'wins' aka usually supersedes state law.

We have in this country, and have always had, religious courts in parallel to our secular court system.  In Christianity it is Canon law, versions of which are practiced by Roman Catholics, Eastern Rite Christianity, Anglicans and Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Methodists, Lutherans, and in some forms by Quakers and the Amish.  Judaism has Halacha (aka Halakha) law and courts, and Islam in this country has Sharia.

An example of how a religious court operates would be the requirement for both a SECULAR legal decision and a religious one to end a marriage, either by divorce or annulment in some faiths and the requirement to do so by secular courts as well, before one can marry, IF one's religion has that requirement (and some do).  In other instances religious courts are purely advisory, for example on the finer points of keeping Kosher or Halal.

If you don't want to go through the religious courts, then no one requires it for secular purposes; it is entirely voluntary as a matter of religious faith and conscience.

But the ridiculous radical religious right deliberately misrepresents this, ginning up fear that Sharia law is somehow a threat to replace secular law.  It never has been and never would or could be; this is pure propaganda, complete ignorance pandering to the gullible, looking for an excuse to express their hatred for anyone who does not conform to their belief or will. From the same source above:

At least individual states are finally taking matters into their own hands to stop the travesty of Sharia law in America. The Christian Action Network noted on its website that Sharia law, also called Islamic law, has been used in United States courts multiple times to override America's law under the guise of Freedom of Religion. Of course! Freedom of Religion is suddenly important when it involves catering to the violent religion of Islam. However, if you take your Bible to the public square you better have on a bullet proof vest and when you demand protection from your President against foreign and domestic threats you get psycho-babble about the Crusades.
The Christian Action Network site went on to say: “Montana may be on the brink of accomplishing what Congress, the federal court system and all but three other states could not: Banning Islamic Shariah law from being used in state courts.”

There is NO case, whatsoever, ANYWHERE in the United States, its possessions or territories, at any time, that any religious law, Sharia, Halacha, or Canon law, has been used to override American law.

Another example of this kind of fear mongering and hate peddling is occurring across right wing media over a Sharia court in Irving Texas.  Specifically, a proposal for a ban on Sharia law in Mississippi is referencing that religious court, from the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN):

Lawmakers in Mississippi are proposing legislation that would ban Sharia law from the state.

"I think we need to make a stand and a statement that we are not going to allow it to be used in our court system," state Rep. John Moore, R-Brandon, said.

More than two dozen states have considered similar bans on the laws followed in Muslim nations.

A group of Muslims in northern Texas has created what may be the first official Sharia law system in the United States. 

The Sharia tribunal in Irving, Texas, said they're not planning to follow the type of Sharia practiced in Muslim countries, where severe punishments are handed out for even small crimes, women have very few rights, and blasphemy against Mohammed can result in a death sentence.

But in Mississippi, Rep. Moore recently introduced a meaure that blocks any foreign laws from being enforced or applied in the state and country.

He made clear that Sharia law is a big concern and wants to make sure it never gets argued in a Mississippi courtroom.

He said a Muslim defendent could try to use Sharia law as a defense against a U.S. criminal case.

This is a right wing lie; no one has succeeded in using such a defense, nor is it a defense attempt unique to one religion.  The closest we have come to a problem with a religious law interfering with the function of civil and criminal secular law was the abuse by the Roman Catholic church in conducting their own investigations under Canon Law instead of immediately reporting all accusations of sex crimes.  This led to priests being protected by the Church from legal action, including prosecution  under cover of priests being subject to Canon Law rather than civil and criminal secular law, as we see in the findings of subsequent law suits and investigative reports by journalists.

So we see the ridiculous, radical, religious right engaging in the most vile hypocrisy when it comes to outlawing Canon Law, and instead obsessing factually falsely about Sharia Law, as a justification and pretence for raging bigotry and Islamophobia.