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.

GOP = Nasty mix of HYPOCRISY and INTIMIDATION, topped with LIE sprinkles

Two stories come together that represent the worst of hypocrisy and partisan intimidation, combined with the typical stupidity of people in southern states in voting against their own self-interests and the local, state and national interest in favor of special interests and the worst of partisan games.

The two stories: Joe-Not-My-Name-Not-a-Real-Plumber Sam Wurzelbacher is now working a union job at Chrysler.  He claims he now doesn't REALLY hate unions, he LIKES the UAW, the unions he hates are just PUBLIC Unions.   The difference is there is no difference, but hey -- conservatives don't mix well with facts.  Apparently ol' Sammy-Joe thinks the private unions are great, NOW.  Of course, like a true conservative, he's obsessed with homophobia and whining about what a victim he is.  (For the record, once and for all -- 'tea bagger' is not a gay slur, unless the person making it is a homophobe.) The other story that relates to this is, of course, the intimidation by Republicans of the VW plant workers in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

He conspicuously forgot to mention that union attitude, over and over and over and over in the past.

Joe/Sam announced his new job:

Wurzelbacher wrote, “I was just recently hired on at Chrysler. Can a conservative work safely and soundly in a union environment – in a shop filled with union workers, activists, voters and life-long supporters of the Democrat Party? You betcha. Yes, I have a website that puts out conservative news. Yes, I am part owner of a gun company. Yes, I’m a Republican who was cast into the limelight for having the temerity to confront Barack Obama on the question of redistributing wealth… But I’m a working man and I’m working.”

"Temerity", Joe? No, there was no temerity; you just demonstrated you had a poor grasp of the facts of the ACA and of the real nature of redistributing wealth, and that IGNORANCE was seized upon by the radical right, who then exploited and used you.

Let the whining begin:

"I had three days of orientation, and now I’m “on the job” over here at Chrysler and on Day 4, I’m outside on a break smoking a cigarette and right on cue – some guy calls me a “teabagger.

Now, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that Democrats and liberals, who are supposed to so tolerant and enlightened regarding homosexuals have for three or four years now, have been using a gay slur to describe people who they think are associated with the Tea Party. “Tea Bagger” has traditionally been a derogatory slur used to intimidate, put down, humiliate and otherwise taunt, smear, bully or just discriminate against gays – usually gay men – based on a sex act that gay men apparently made popular.

Decorum prevents me from describing it – they got this thing called “Google” now for that – but suffice it to say that the double-standard for what Democrats can say and what conservatives can say continues unabated, but still I thought to myself, did this guy think I’m gay, or was he making a statement of my political affiliation?

Joe, are you that stupid, and that much a prude, that you REALLY believe teabagger is a homophobic slur? You must have gotten that idea from your homophobic culture-war-waging CONSERVATIVE friends.  It's a pretty safe bet that the term was used to reference your political bent, not how your sexuality is bent; but if you aren't sure, why don't you ASK?  I think you don't ask, because you already know, and you are engaging in the typical conservative whine-fest, looking for a fake excuse to claim to be a victim, AGAIN.  You might want to rethink that; I don't see making that kind of fake claim endearing you to your new co-workers, on the basis of misrepresenting the exchange and them in a presumably public forum.  Among other objections Joe, it smacks of YOU being a homophobe, what with homophobe and teabagger being pretty much synonymous.  It's not like Joe/Sam hasn't raucously exchanged the vulgar slang term 'C*ck-s*ck*er' before in conversation, so it is overstretching credulity to assert this new delicacy relating to crude oral sex references.

We go from the individual auto worker / radical right wing hack to the group-think radical right wing hacks, with a huge propaganda launch by them to mislead and intimidate union membership in Tennessee.
This story is just one of those which smacks of the fact-deficient and emotional appeal of propaganda to mislead and deceive.

From the Tennessean:  TN taxpayers subsidize UAW outrage at VW plant

When Volkswagen Chattanooga opened its doors in 2011, it did so with generous help from the Tennessee taxpayer.
In fact, the more than a half-billion dollars in subsidies that the company received to come to Tennessee amounted to the “richest incentive package — and perhaps the most government assistance and tax breaks ever for an American automobile plant,” according to the Chattanooga Times Free Press.
And here is what the taxpayers of Tennessee are getting for their money: The United Auto Workers, a hard left political organization that bankrupted General Motors and spends millions to elect liberal politicians, has been given full access to the Chattanooga facility.

Sticking a wrench in the spin here,when Republicans spend a heaping helping of tax dollars to bring in the auto plant, without unions, to enhance getting Republicans elected, that's ok.  The claims of the UAW bankrupting General Motors or any of the other auto manufacturers is bogus; it was poor management decision making, as we see from the new rebirth of the auto industry, with help from Democrats - and unions.  The spin continues at a high RPM:

Union officials, including Region 8 Director Gary Casteel, have been granted office space in the plant to better force-feed his union’s propaganda to the workers (who were not given the opportunity to ask questions in return, according to sources). And UAW troops sporting shirts emblazoned with the union logo have been roaming the production lines, intimidating workers who are just trying to do their jobs.
And here is what else is going on in the tax-subsidized VW plant: Workers who have requested equal access to those facilities to talk about alternatives to UAW representation have been denied permission to do so by Sebastian Patta, Volkswagen vice president of human resources at Chattanooga.
Back in Germany, the Volkswagen Works Council is controlled by IG Metall, a powerful union that is allied with the UAW and has strongly urged Chattanooga workers to accept UAW representation.

There are no credible reports of any kind of intimidation.  Identifying someone as a representative of a union available to answer questions is not intimidation -- unless you want to get into the potential for wearing a t-shirt to represent intimidation, including some of the more hateful conservative mottos and logs as such.

Unless another entity has some kind of official standing in organization of workers, there is no legitimate reason for a VW plant to give anyone else an office.  OR does anyone else think that a plant should not have some directorial control over their office space allottment?

And now we are to believe that the poor dumb people of Tennessee, especially the ignorant residents and representatives of Chattanooga are just finding out NOW about VW's relationship with unions?  It's never been a secret, at any time, to anyone who did even minimal homework on VW or German labor practices for that matter.  And here's the big news bomb--- IT MAKES THEM MORE COMPETITIVE AS MANUFACTURERS! IT WORKS, REALLY REALLY WELL FOR BOTH THE COMPANY AND THE WORKERS AND EVEN THE NATION OF GERMANY.

The propaganda disinformation continues:

Would the state of Tennessee or the city of Chattanooga have given so much so willingly to Volkswagen had they known the UAW was part of the deal? Doubt it. Here’s why:
At the time Volkswagen was breaking ground in 2009, the UAW was part owner of General Motors, having been given one-sixth of the company during the auto bailout. GM is a competitor of Volkswagen. Then there’s the UAW political agenda. This union is bad for business and bad for politics. And no one in Tennessee was told that this union poison was going to be poured into the economic pool.
Let’s be clear about what’s happening in Chattanooga. Upper management is conspiring with the union to give it every advantage in the coming election, while doing everything it can to shut down dissenting voices. Sources tell the Center for Worker Freedom that plant supervisors who oppose the union are afraid to speak out for fear of their jobs. Sources also tell us that workers feel they are under “lockdown” while they are on the job, as union troops patrol the production lines in a classic projection of power and intimidation.

Unions probably ARE bad for the kind of partisan politics that the radical right likes to engage in, including the radical redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the 1%. But Unions are not bad for business and they are not bad for government. The only people pushing fear and lies are from the right. You know -- like Sam/Joe the not-a-plumber. Same whine, same lies, just on a larger group level further south, where the ignorance grows tall and wide.

Both stories are about one thing, and one thing only - lies and distortion to generate fear, and highly partisan politics at the expense of the average citizen who works hard.

People Brining Guns to the Batman Movie - a bad idea

We had a recent instance where a man in Colorado brought his pet firearm to the movie.  Apparently he was socially maladroit, and it failed to dawn on him that other people would not be as enthused with his fetish object, or be as impressed with his magnificent judgment as he was with himself.

Now I read that 3 different men brought THEIR little pet darling firearms to a showing of the movie in Tennessee, in spite of the clear signage not to do so.  Because nothing says respect for law and property rights like ignoring posted signs (you know, property right, those pesky things covered in the Constitution, and not just as relates to the militia).  No doubt the cinema owner has serious financial reasons relating to his property and liability insurance that determines that decision as much as any personal preferences he or she is entitled to have for how they operate their business.

Yessirree, the gun nut vigilante expects all of us to be just thrilled that he brought his lethal weapon.  Somehow it eludes the vigilante that simply by BEING a vigilante, he makes himself NOT a lawful or responsible person, and very much NOT a person who is trustworthy or of sound judgment.

Yet I predict that there will be more of these occurrences; I suspect there are more than are widely reported already.  Only the substantial arsenal, explosives, overt threatening / copycats are getting the big attention now.  All the responsible business owners of theaters do NOT want this stuff hitting the news. Because contrary to how happy the gun carriers were to be so very helpful to the unwilling unhappy theater owner, their actions were not wonderful; and any time you have such poor thinking not-grasping the normative guys with guns, it IS a concern.  I can imagine the gun guys, entranced with how shiny their guns are, drooling slightly, but with an unpleasant degree of agitation.

Our gun culture is a failure. If we needed corroborative proof, here it is.  If you're too dumb to read and obey the rules, you're too dumb to know when it is a good idea to shoot.

From Opposing Views:

3 People Bring Guns to 'Dark Knight' Screening at Movie Theatre in Tennessee
By Kim Dahlgren, Tue, July 31, 2012

Tennessee police confirmed that three people brought guns into the same showing of “The Dark Knight Rises” last Friday night at the Carmike Highland Cinemas.
After a theatre employee noticed a man enter with a holstered pistol, police were notified and the movie was stopped. Police entered the theater and asked the viewers who had entered with a gun.
At that point, three men -- not just one -- told the police that they were, in fact, armed.
While the Herald Citizen reports that all three men had legal permits for their guns, the theatre had a displayed sign prohibiting weapons. Because of this, the men were asked to leave the theatre and the movie was resumed.
In many states, like California, there are very limited circumstances as to who may carry a concealed firearm -- and the majority of citizens don't have that option.
However, in Tennessee, where the instance occurred, carrying a concealed weapon with a permit is allowed in public places. While the Tennessee permit is valid in several other approved states, it is not recognized in places that have a California-like concealed weapons policy.