The subtlety of monolithic Islam bigotry

By Frank Moraes

On Wednesday, I published "Je Suis Charlie." And I stand by most of what I wrote. But there was one thing that I wrote that was based upon hearsay rather than actual research: "In the case of Charlie Hebdo, any outrage is totally unjustified because the magazine took on everyone." It was also based upon the cover illustration to the left that mocked both a Muslim and a Hasidic Jew. But I think there might be a problem with this contention.

Yesterday, Glenn Greenwald wrote "In Solidarity With a Free Press: Some More Blasphemous Cartoons." It is a reaction to a push by many all over the political spectrum who claim that we should celebrate the offending cartoons that supposedly caused the recent massacre of innocents in Paris. It is an interesting and thoughtful analysis of the issue. (Contrast it with Jonathan Chait's incredibly uninteresting response, "Charlie Hebdo Point-Missers Miss Point.") I'm not quite sure where I stand on it. But this part struck me:

With all due respect to the great cartoonist Ann Telnaes, it is simply not the case that Charlie Hebdo "were equal opportunity offenders." Like Bill Maher, Sam Harris and other anti-Islam obsessives, mocking Judaism, Jews and/or Israel is something they will rarely (if ever) do. If forced, they can point to rare and isolated cases where they uttered some criticism of Judaism or Jews, but the vast bulk of their attacks are reserved for Islam and Muslims, not Judaism and Jews.

I don't speak French, so I'm not in a position to say. But it made me realize that the cover illustration above may actually indicate the fundamental problem with my own thinking. The problem, as I now see it, is that the Muslim is generic and the Jew is not. The implication is simply, "all Muslims and particular Jews." But I don't think that this is intentional. It is more along the lines of, "All Japanese look alike!" What such claims actually mean is that the speaker has little experience with Japanese people. (I've had this problem myself -- cured by years of Japanese cinema watching.)

It is pathetic, of course, that I now feel I must mention that I'm free speech absolutist. It is not just that it is obviously wrong to kill people for the "offense" of saying things you disagree with. The idea that people should not have the right to encourage draft resistance during a war ("shouting fire in a crowed theater") is simply ridiculous. Just the same, it is curious, isn't it, that we do not have such clearly political -- First Amendment -- rights, but we do have the right to snipe at minority groups in any way that we choose -- including "the right of neo-Nazis to march through a community filled with Holocaust survivors..."

According to Juan Cole, two-thirds of Muslim heritage French people don't even consider themselves religious -- much less "radical." The problem here is that even among the very small world population of Jews (less than 20 million), we distinguish. But the 1.6 billion Muslims are monolithic for us. And that's why that Charlie Hebdo cover struck me as fairly even-handed (I would have preferred a Christian in there -- but intolerance is not limited to any religion or non-religion).

Bigotry is, at base, about classification -- treating individuals as members of a group. It is a very big issue that I fight with in myself constantly regarding racism. I fear that many people who, like me, worry about racism, don't worry about such grouping problems when it comes to religion. After all, people supposedly choose their religions. There are a couple of problems with that. First, people don't choose their religions. Almost every religious person is a member of the faith they grew up in. Second, as we know only too well, there is very little that can be generalized about a hippy Unitarian and a right-wing evangelical Protestant. The same is true of all people. I'm sure there are even cruel Jains.

I would hate for the tragedy in Paris to leave us with nothing but what we should have always known: people shouldn't be killed because others find them offensive. Worse still is the idea that this is all about Islam, because if these actions really spoke of the religion, those 1.6 billion Muslims would have forced us to live under a worldwide caliphate by now. I suppose that it is asking too much for everyone to take this as an opportunity to examine themselves. But it really is on all of us non-Muslims, because it isn't like the terrorists are going to start wearing "gang colors." And it is wrong to ask Muslims to abandon their heritage so we can better spot those we ought to fear. (Not that it would work, of course.)

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

What's wrong with an Indian-American Miss America?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Nothing. Nothing at all.

(What's wrong with this and other such pageants? A whole lot, but that's another matter.)

New Yorker Nina Davuluri, who won the title on Sunday, is, as you can well imagine if you haven't yet seen her, is a beautiful woman. And apparently a really smart one as well. (I hate these pageants, but at least this one isn't entirely about physical objectification anymore.)

But of course, as you can also well imagine if you haven't seen it already, there are many across the country who don't think Davuluri is quite "American" enough -- you know, American as defined by, say, the KKK. Or Fox News:

It should go without saying that Davuluri, a Syracuse native of Indian descent, is neither Muslim nor an Arab. But according to Fox News Radio host Todd Starnes, the American-born Davuluri doesn't "represent American values," unlike the blonde-haired, blue-eyed contestant from Kansas, Theresa Vail.

This is not to say that Vail isn’t an unprecedented contestant in her own right: she's spent five years in the Kansas Army National Guard and is double-majoring in chemistry and Chinese at Kansas State University. But, according to Starnes on Facebook, she lost because "the liberal Miss America judges were not interested in a gun-toting, deer-hunting, military veteran."

Yes, you see, Davuluri is... different. As in, has a different skin color. And a different name. And all that. For many, she's part of the Other, and that Other is a broad category. Davuluri is Indian, and a Hindu, but the common smear has been that she's an Arab and/or a Muslim, because of course that's often what the Other is seen to be, you know, because 9/11.

The ignorance is blatant, and hardly surprising. It's bigotry, pure and simple, including when some jackass talk radio host couches it as not representing American values. If you're different, you see, you're just not American.

Read more »

So you think Ray Kelly should head up the Department of Homeland Security?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well, whether you do or don't, you should read Conor Friedersdorf's excellent piece at The Atlantic, "Prominent Democrats Are Now Comfortable With Racial and Ethnic Profiling," which includes:

Under Ray Kelly, the NYPD infiltrated Muslim communities and spied on hundreds or perhaps thousands of totally innocent Americans at mosques, colleges, and elsewhere. Officers "put American citizens under surveillance and scrutinized where they ate, prayed and worked, not because of charges of wrongdoing but because of their ethnicity," AP reported, citing NYPD documents. Informants were paid to bait Muslims into making inflammatory statements. The NYPD even conducted surveillance on Muslim Americans outside its jurisdiction, drawing a rebuke from an FBI field office, where a top official charged that "the department's surveillance of Muslims in the state has hindered investigations and created 'additional risks' in counterterrorism."

Moreover, "In more than six years of spying on Muslim neighborhoods, eavesdropping on conversations and cataloguing mosques," the Associated Press reported, "the New York Police Department's secret Demographics Unit never generated a lead or triggered a terrorism investigation." The horrifying effects on innocent Americans are documented here. But despite the high costs and lack of counterterrorism benefits, Kelly stands behind the surveillance on Muslims.

*****

On its own, Kelly's treatment of Muslims ought to disqualify him from the position, and even from being praised by the president of the United States. On its own, his treatment of blacks and Hispanics ought to disqualify him from being promoted, too. But his tenure has also been characterized by a dearth of transparency that has exacerbated his abuses. As Murray Weiss explains, "The lack of transparency during the Kelly administration played a pivotal role in keeping the public -- and by extension the NYPD -- from recognizing years earlier that the number of stop-and-frisks in New York was escalating to troubling levels. Kelly failed to disclose the stop-and-frisk numbers for seven years despite being required by law to do so. When he was finally forced to release them, the numbers were stunning, and caused critics to ask why stop-and-frisks escalated from 100,000 during Bloomberg's first year in office to 500,000 seven years later."

Yet New York Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer is lobbying for him, and on Wednesday President Obama said Kelly's "obviously done an extraordinary job" and would be "very well qualified for the job" of Homeland Security secretary.

Sadly, this isn't at all surprising, though it is to the immense discredit of both men.

Peter King, terrorism supporter, eyes White House, role of bigot-in-chief

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

Apparently, Peter King -- the congressman from New York, not the SI/NBC football guy -- is thinking about running for president.

(I'll pause while you let out a hearty laugh.)

I look forward to hearing him explain his rabid anti-Muslim bigotry and his enthusiastic support for the terrorist Irish Republican Army on the campaign trail.

Doesn't stand a chance, you say? I thought so, too, at first.

But consider how well anti-Muslim bigotry and the right (i.e., right-wing, or at least white) sort of terrorism freedom fighting, not to mention the call for greater domestic surveillance particularly of Muslims, plays among Republicans.

They lap that shit up.

It's still a long shot, but stranger things have happened.

Republican candidate for lieutenant governor of Virginia, E.W. Jackson, apparently also running for Worst Republican Ever

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Okay, here's what we know about this crazy guy so far:

-- He thinks President Obama sees the world from "a Muslim perspective" and is anti-Semitic and anti-Israel.

-- He thinks gays are "very sick people psychologically."

-- He thinks Democrats are like slave masters.

-- He thinks Planned Parenthood has been "far more lethal to black lives than the KKK ever was." Oh, and that "the Democrat Party and the black civil rights allies are partners in this genocide."

And... well, you can read more here. This is all stuff he's said in the past, before he was a candidate. Who knows what will come during the campaign?

Oh, and here's another thing: 

E.W. Jackson, the Virginia GOP's nominee for lieutenant governor, began his career as a minister and attorney in Boston. While there, he lent his support to a high-profile 1988 fight against a plan to desegregate public housing developments in the neighborhood of South Boston.

Yes, that's right. He was against desegregation. And by the way, the fact that he's black doesn't really make that any better. 

Well done, Virginia Republicans. Your state is turning purple (or, rather, has already turned purple and may now be turning blue) and you respond to that by nominating a guy so out on the right-wing fringe he makes the guy running for governor, Ken Cuccinelli, look like a sensible moderate by comparison. (Well, no, not really. Cuccinelli still hates blow jobs and has a long record of the right-wing crazy.)

The only thing that would make sense would be if Republicans picked Jackson to make Cuccinelli look better. But that's way too Machiavellian -- there was no such conspiracy.

No, they just fucked themselves with Jackson. No wonder they're already panicking.

Craziest Republican of the Day: E.W. Jackson

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Virginia may be turning blue, but its Republican Party -- the party of Gov. Bob McDonnell and Lt. Gov. Ken Cuccinelli -- is getting redder and redder.

And crazier and crazier, perhaps because it knows deep down that it's losing the state.

You'll recall that McDonnell, among other things, reinstituted state discrimination against gays and lesbians as well as Confederate History Month in Virginia, while Cuccinelli, who is now running for governor, worries about exposed boobs and blow jobs and otherwise pushed an even more extremist agenda.

Well, apparently that's not crazy enough for Virginia Republicans, who yesterday nominated E.W. Jackson, a far-right minister, to be Cuccinelli's successor. And just how crazy is Jackson?

Jackson also maintained a now defunct blog on his site, where he argued in one post that President Obama saw the world "from a Muslim perspective."

Obama clearly has Muslim sensibilities. He sees the world and Israel from a Muslim perspective. His construct of "The Muslim World" is unique in modern diplomacy. It is said that only The Muslim Brotherhood and other radical elements of the religion use that concept. It is a call to unify Muslims around the world...

Those who are paying attention and thinking about these issues do not find it unreasonable to consider that President Obama is influenced by a strain of anti-Semitism picked up from the black community, his leftist friends and colleagues, his Muslim associations and his long period of mentorship under Jeremiah Wright. If this conclusion is accurate, Israel has some dark days ahead. For the first time in her history, she may find the President of the United States siding with her enemies.

Um, what?

Read more »

A wretched hive of scum and villainy

By Mustang Bobby

The Family Research Council's Values Voter Summit

MJWS adds: I would just note that along with the usual suspects like Michele Bachmann, Jim DeMint, and Gary Bauer, Paul Ryan gave a speech at the event and Mitt Romney sent a video message sucking up to the religious fanatics in attendance.

That says a lot about their "values," no?

NYPD spying on Muslim community damages trust, relationships

Guest post by Rabia Chaudry

Rabia Chaudry is an associate fellow of the Truman National Security Project and the president of the Safe Nation Collaborative.

A few years ago I joined about twenty other Muslim community leaders gathered to meet a regional outreach officer from a law enforcement agency. Many present had been living in the area for decades and were pillars of their communities. The officer introduced himself, noting that he had been in the region for over 15 years. He then mentioned that about 90 percent of his work, and the work of his agency, was in the Muslim community. We were shocked; none of us had ever met him before. We left the meeting feeling unnerved that there was so much "work" being done upon us without our knowledge. It was my first realization that the relationship between law enforcement and American Muslims was dysfunctional.

Training agents and officers that Islam is inherently violent, mapping Muslim establishments and mosques, infiltrating Muslim students at universities, and spying on Muslim leaders – these are only a few of the numerous stories recently uncovered about missteps taken by U.S. law enforcement agencies in their dealings with Muslims. The extent to which these invasive tactics have been unapologetically supported by officials such as Mayor Bloomberg, and apparently funded by the White House, has shocked the civil liberties world and eroded the trust of American Muslims.

The systematic dismantling by some law enforcement agencies, most notably the NYPD, of the goodwill built with Muslims over the last decade is truly puzzling. Studies show that there is no prevalence of radicalization amongst American Muslims, no correlation between religiosity and violence, and no reliable profile of a terrorist. Furthermore, Muslims have assisted authorities in foiling one third of all terror plots involving other Muslims since 9/11.

So the question must be asked: why do law enforcement agencies continue to engage in policies and tactics that, in light of empirical evidence, are futile in the fight against terror? Why are tremendous amounts of resources being wasted in monitoring and profiling communities of Muslims when the net result amounts to nothing more than notes on halal fried chicken joints or the number of times students prayed during a white water rafting trip?

Cynics may suggest that our law enforcement agencies are full of bigots and xenophobes or have no regard for civil liberties. However, I have more faith in those who risk their lives daily to protect us. The only reasonable explanation of the behavior of agencies such as the NYPD, LAPD, and FBI is that they sincerely believe that Islam is an intrinsically violent, radicalizing force and that Muslims are potential threats to security.

Such a conclusion is absurd not only to the nearly two billion peaceful Muslims in the world, but also to those who live and work alongside Muslims every day. Yet our law enforcement agencies continue to be taught that the Quran encourages violence, that religious and practicing Muslims view violent jihad as an obligation, and that peaceful Muslim practice deceit. According to "Manufacturing the Muslim Menace" (pdf), a comprehensive 2011 study by Thomas Cincotta of Political Research Associates, there exists an entire industry devoted to teaching law enforcement officers to hate Islam and Muslims.

It is said that you cannot build a tower on a crooked foundation. In this case, the foundation must be rebuilt. The only way to remedy the destructive education about Islam and Muslims given to law enforcement is to re-educate them. In fact, last year the White House and Department of Justice came to this very conclusion. They issued guidelines for trainers on Islam and Muslims and called for closer local collaboration between Muslim and law enforcement communities. The memo seems not to have reached everyone, however. Just recently, Tennessee approved law enforcement training by John Guandolo, one of the same Islamophobic trainers cited in Cincotta's study.

It has to be understood that American Muslims hold the highest stakes when it comes to keeping America safe from threats arising from rogue Muslims; no group has more to lose from a terror attack. Law enforcement must realize that it works from a place of common interest with Muslims and that the cooperation and trust of Muslims is essential to successful counter-terror operations. These understandings will only be internalized and reflected in policies and strategies when law enforcement agencies are re-trained on Islam and Muslims. Considering the significant damaging of trust in the past few weeks, it is time that law enforcement worked with Muslim communities instead of around them by making it a priority to arm themselves with accurate information about Islam.

"Ground Zero mosque" opens, America still standing

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In case you missed it, Park51, the so-called "Ground Zero mosque" (though it was neither at Ground Zero nor a mosque), opened its doors on Wednesday "without controversy," the Daily News reports.

I can only assume that the various anti-Muslim bigots who made such noise last year, including not a few high-ranking Republicans, as if the presence of this community center so close to Ground Zero (but more generally, its very existence) would herald a new age of anti-American jihadism launched from within, had more pressing targets to vilify.

(Is that right, Newt?)

Meanwhile, most New Yorkers, including Mayor Bloomberg, who eloquently advocated for Park51 (and for religious freedom generally), took it all in stride.

And how could they not?

Upon opening, the center featured a photography exhibit of "city children representative of 160 ethnicities from around the world... compiled by a 44-year-old Jewish shutterbug from Brooklyn, Danny Goldfield."

Not exactly threatening.

Republicans fire up NY-9 race with their usual anti-Muslim bigotry

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here's what the GOP mailed to voters in NY-9 -- Anthony Weiner's district, where a special election will be held tomorrow:

And here's Politico with the details:

New York Republicans have sent out a kitchen-sink mailer in the hotly-contested Queens congressional special election depicting a mosque superimposed over the scarred Ground Zero site on one side, and Democrat David Weprin alongside President Barack Obama on the other.

The mailer is one of a string that the New York State Republican Party sent out in this close race between state Assembly member Weprin and Republican businessman Bob Turner for the 9th congressional district seat that was held by scandal-singed Democrat Anthony Weiner.

But it's also one of the more incendiary fliers in the contest that was supposed to be a lock for Democrats in a reliably blue district, but has turned into a dogfight in which Turner has the momentum.

The front of the flier features a golden-domed mosque rising in front of the demolished World Trade Center site, a shell of metal rising near a photo of Weprin and a quote of his from last September, saying: "I support the right of the mosque to buid..."

The reverse page is a picture of Weprin juxtaposed against a photo of the president, and text reading: "Weprin stands with Obama — and they stand together in support of the mosque at Ground Zero."

The piece was received by a registered voter in NY-9 in the past week, landing in the days leading up to the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Yes, incendiary is one word for it. Exploitational is another, but, then, when have Republicans ever shied away from exploiting 9/11 for personal or political gain?

And anti-Muslim bigotry is just part of who they are these days. They hardly shy away from that either (with a few exceptions, like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who went way out on a limb to distance himself from so much of the rest of his party).

And make no mistake, the virulent right-wing opposition to Park51, the proposed Muslim community center near Ground Zero, was essentially about anti-Muslim bigotry.

With a possible upset/pickup in sight, Republicans are returning to that well, exploiting 9/11, pandering to the basest prejudices of voters, and saying that a vote for the Republican, Bob Turner, is a vote against Muslims.

And therefore a vote against religious freedom, and freedom generally, particularly freedom for the "Other" as defined in narrow terms by these bigots.

A vote, that is, against all that America is supposed to stand for.

That's Republican America.

Chris Christie isn't completely awful

By Michael J.W. Stickings

He's a bully and a blowhard, but New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has actually done a couple of admirable things recently.

First he appointed a Muslim judge, rejecting fears of the imposition of sharia law and slamming those -- on the right, of course, and distinctly Republican -- who opposed the appointment on ignorant and bigoted grounds:

It's just crazy, and I'm tired of dealing with the crazies. It's just unnecessary to be accusing this guy of things just because of his religious background. I'm happy that he's willing to serve after all this baloney.

That's awfully refreshing coming from a Republican, that is, from a prominent member of a party that seems to run on bigotry these days. Indeed, it's like he was rejecting his own party, or at least a huge part of it. See the clip below.

And now he's come to the defence of rape victims:

Health care providers in New Jersey can no longer bill sexual assault victims for forensic evidence collection.

Gov. Chris Christie signed a bill into law Thursday that prevents victims from being bill directly for medical screenings, medications for sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy tests after an incident.

Christie says sexual assault victims must be treated with respect and compassion. He says this will help ensure their needs are met.

This was a pretty easy call, to be sure, given that victims aren't supposed to be billed directly. But they often are, and, needless to say, that's hardly what a rape victim needs.

Still, as easy as it may have been, or should have been, to sign this bill, the fact is that rape victims all too often aren't treated with respect and compassion, including by those in the political arena, and especially by some on the right.

At least this time, as with his rejection of anti-Muslim bigotry in appointing a Muslim judge, Christie did the right thing.

Herman Cain: "I'm so sorry, Muslims, for hating you so much."

By Michael J.W. Stickings

TPM reports:

Herman Cain had his much-ballyhooed meeting with Muslims Wednesday, and he emerged, he said in a campaign statement "humble and contrite for any statements I have made that might have caused offense to Muslim Americans and their friends."

Cain stood behind his past remarks about Islam and sharia law, but he apologized to the Muslims he may have offended. In a recent interview, Cain said that Americans should be allowed to ban mosques from their communities if they so choose.

"While I stand by my opposition to the interference of sharia law into the American legal system, I remain humble and contrite for any statements I have made that might have caused offense to Muslim Americans and their friends," he said in the statement. "I am truly sorry for any comments that may have betrayed my commitment to the U.S. Constitution and the freedom of religion guaranteed by it."

First, Herman Cain is an anti-Muslim bigot. This apology hardly erases his record.

"As I expected, we discovered we have much more in common in our values and virtues," Cain said. "In my own life as a black youth growing up in the segregated South, I understand their frustration with stereotypes. Those in attendance, like most Muslim Americans, are peaceful Muslims and patriotic Americans whose good will is often drowned out by the reprehensible actions of jihadists."

Second, Herman Cain is an ignorant fool. He didn't realize before these shared experiences? A black man who experienced bigotry first-hand should know better. That he didn't, and may still not, says a lot about him -- and not good things.

Third, what about the reprehensible actions of Christian extremists/terrorists, both at home and abroad? Oh right, we're not allowed to talk about that.

Am I being unfair? Was Cain being sincere? Maybe. But I recommend we watch for genuine expressions of humility and contrition going forward. I suspect there won't be many.

Are American conservatives to blame for the Oslo massacre?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I haven't yet commented on the Oslo massacre, mainly because I think it's pretty clear what it was all about -- why it happened -- once you strip away the despicable knee-jerk efforts of conservatives to pin the blame on Islamic jihadism (placing it squarely in their anti-Muslim narrative).

Events like this don't happen in a vacuum. This was not some random outburst but rather an act of right-wing Christian terrorism directed at "the left" and based largely on anti-Muslim bigotry and hate generally. And we must turn our attention not just to the accused but to that which created him. As Scott Shane writes at The New York Times:

The man accused of the killing spree in Norway was deeply influenced by a small group of American bloggers and writers who have warned for years about the threat from Islam, lacing his 1,500-page manifesto with quotations from them, as well as copying multiple passages from the tract of the Unabomber.

In the document he posted online, Anders Behring Breivik, who is accused of bombing government buildings and killing scores of young people at a Labor Party camp, showed that he had closely followed the acrimonious American debate over Islam.

His manifesto, which denounced Norwegian politicians as failing to defend the country from Islamic influence, quoted Robert Spencer, who operates the Jihad Watch Web site, 64 times, and cited other Western writers who shared his view that Muslim immigrants pose a grave danger to Western culture.

More broadly, the mass killings in Norway, with their echo of the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City by an antigovernment militant, have focused new attention around the world on the subculture of anti-Muslim bloggers and right-wing activists and renewed a debate over the focus of counterterrorism efforts.

In the United States, critics have asserted that the intense spotlight on the threat from Islamic militants has unfairly vilified Muslim Americans while dangerously playing down the threat of attacks from other domestic radicals. 

Yes, we need to turn our attention to anti-Muslim bigotry in the United States as a major contributor to the "culture" that created this killer. But we're not just talking about a "subculture" of "bloggers" and "activists," we're talking about elected officials and major media figures, specifically about the Republican Party and the conservatism that sustains it.

The subculture is there, yes, but it's not really that "sub." It's pretty much in the mainstream these days. Expressions of anti-Muslim bigotry can be heard all over Fox News and right-wing talk radio. They can be heard from the likes of Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Peter King, and Allen West, among many others. Muslims, including Muslim-Americans are being treated as the new Other, as a threat to the very fabric of American life. Fearmongering in full swing, they are being vilified and scapegoated, lumped together as fundamentally anti-American. We are told that they wish to impose Sharia law on America, that their mosques and community centers are training grounds for terrorism, that they want to take our freedom away, that if we're not vigilant, that if we don't fight back, our whole way of life is doomed.

Is it really any wonder there is violence? Is it any wonder the Oslo massacre happened?

Yes, it takes someone unhinged to do such a thing, but that's exactly the problem. No one expects, say, Newt Gingrich to go on a shooting spree, to act out his anti-Muslim bigotry in violent ways. But what happens when someone unhinged gets hold of what Gingrich says, of what others say, when their message gets through? And when the "culture" basically tells this person that violence not just okay but, given the threat, even makes sense and may even be the only way to preserve our freedom?

All it takes is one Anders Behring Breivik.

So are American conservatives to blame? Not entirely, of course, but yes. Many of them, those who feed the culture of hate, those who target Muslims. And it's not always with explicit rhetoric either. You don't have to say you hate Muslims, or that Muslims are evil, just that they shouldn't be able to worship in your community, that they're "foreign" and not like you, that they're "different" and "alien," that they're trying to take over. That's the sort of thing that is all-too-common among American conservatives these days, including from high-profile figures in the media and the Republican Party.

Oh, they'll try to deflect attention and say they deserve no blame, lashing out at their critics, just as they did with the Oklahoma City bombing and more recently with the Tucson shooting and just as they do whenever there's an act of right-wing terrorism, which is more frequent than you might think from the way it's not at all covered in the media.

We just mustn't let them get away with it.

Herman Cain ramps up the anti-Muslim bigotry, says communities should be able to ban mosques

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There is ample evidence out there that Tea Party pizza mogul Herman Cain, a presidential favourite for many in the GOP, is an ignorant anti-Muslim bigot. For example, he has proposed a loyalty test for Muslim Americans who would serve in his administration (not that he'll ever be president). In this regard, he fits in nicely with the Republican Party, which houses a good deal of such bigotry, from Peter King to Allen West to Newt Gingrich to so many others, bigotry widespread throughout the grassroots.

Well, Cain is ramping up the bigotry, or at least just being more open about his own views:

Herman Cain says voters across the country should have the right to prevent Muslims from building mosques in their communities.

In an exchange on "Fox News Sunday," the Republican presidential contender said that he sided with some in a town near Nashville who were trying to prevent Muslims from worshiping in their community.

"Our Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state," he said. "Islam combines church and state. They're using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their morals in that community, and the people of that community do not like it. They disagree with it."

Asked by host Chris Wallace if any community could ban a mosque if it wanted to, Cain said: "They have a right to do that."

Cain, an African-American who grew up during the civil rights era, claimed he was not discriminating against Muslims. He said it was "totally different" than the fight for racial equality because there were laws prohibiting blacks from advancing.

Totally different? Hardly. What we're talking about is the right to worship freely and without either government interference. And any community that were to ban a mosque would be interfering in the exercise of that right. The fact that Cain is black and supposedly knows firsthand what such discrimination is all about only adds to the craziness of his position.

What's more, Cain apparently knows nothing about Islam. Are there some Muslims who wish to combine church and state? Sure, but in America there are many more Christians who do. Is Cain proposing that communities should be permitted to ban churches? Of course not.

But this is just the sort of bigoted fearmongering that spews forth from Republicans these days: Muslims are all the same, all trying to impose Sharia law on an otherwise free society. Which, of course, is utterly ridiculous. The vast majority of American Muslims are good, decent, and honest people who only wish to live like other Americans while also being free to worship as they please. And, again, if you really want to find religious types who seek to "infuse their morals," you need look no further than the Christianist right, a core Republican consituency. They're the ones who want to restrict your freedom in the name of their "faith."

But of course it's easier to scapegoat Muslims, especially if you're a Republican trying to win over your party's core supporters. As Doug Mataconis writes at Outside the Beltway, "[t]he Herman Cain boomlet is dying, because its becoming clear that everything that comes out of his mouth is utter nonsense." Yes, the boomlet is fading, but he still has his support, which goes to show that this sort of bigoted nonsense actually has some traction in today's Republican Party.

For more, see Think Progress, which also has the video (see below). We've also written previously about the efforts to build a Muslim community center in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, efforts that have met with violent resistance from locals in lockstep with the likes of Herman Cain -- see here and here.

Herman Cain may be an anti-Muslim bigot, but he's also a fairly mainstream Republican

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf: "Herman Cain's Anti-Muslim Bigotry Should Be Disqualifying."

Um, sure, and Friedersdorf rightly picks apart Cain's reprehensible loyalty test proposal, but this is the Republican Party we're talking about here, the party of bigots like Pete King and Allen West.

I hardly think being an anti-Muslim bigot disqualifies you from being a Republican, and even a very popular one.

Bigotry in Buffalo

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Buffalo News:

A feud between two Transit Road neighbors -- a homeowner and a mosque -- turned ugly this weekend when the homeowner staked a sign on his front lawn insinuating that the new 11,600-square-foot Islamic worship site is home to a "bomb making" operation.

Michael Heick, who lives next door to the Jaffarya Islamic Center of Niagara Frontier, put a small sign that reads "Bomb Making Next Driveway" to northbound traffic on Transit Road. The next driveway on the same side of the road as Heick's home heading north is the Jaffarya Center, at 10300 Transit.

Given the culture of anti-Muslim bigotry that has sprung up all over American, with conservatives -- and, yes, leading Republicans -- stirring up fear and hatred, are we surprised?

But this guy has an excuse:

Heick said he put up the sign because he was frustrated with how the mosque and Amherst town officials have handled his concerns about the building, which opened in November.

"The place is too close. I don't care what people think. It doesn't matter what people think," he said Monday evening from his front porch. "This is a way to get answers now. I get none from the town. The intent was to catch the eye of the people who I have a problem with."

Really? He objects to the mosque's bright lights and so puts up a sign saying it's a haven for terrorists? (Because, of course, all Muslims are either active terrorists or would-be terrorists. Isn't that what we are being told?) He's certainly managed to get some attention, but he's really just exposed himself as a bigot.

An open letter to Newt Gingrich

By Michael J.W. Stickings

"Dear" Newt:

How exactly could you have "a secular atheist country... dominated by radical Islamists"?

Do you not see the contradiction? Or are you just so deranged that you can't see anything clearly anymore, if you ever could?

And yet it's hardly surprising that you continue to sink into the morass of anti-Muslim bigotry. You were there fearmongering over the Park51 community center, and, like many in your party (e.g., Peter King) you choose to scapegoat Muslims as the dangerous anti-American Other.

But this isn't just anti-Muslim bigotry that you're tapping into. You said this at John Hagee's church in Texas. Back in 2008, John McCain refused Hagee's endorsement because of ugly remarks the extremist evangelist made about God sending Hitler to hunt the Jews.

"Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them," McCain said at the time. And yet you, Newt, happily appear at Hagee's side, praising him profusely for his inspiration and "dedication to serve."

Did you, do you, find Hagee's remarks offensive? What about Hagee's many other similar remarks? Or has your bigotry, directed mostly at Muslims, overtaken you?

Just wondering -- you know, because you may be running for president and are widely considered, including by the media, to be a leading Republican.

Rather insincerely,

Michael Stickings

So you think the Tea Party GOP isn't a cesspool of bigotry?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Add this to all the evidence that's accumulated so far:

As the Republican presidential nomination process begins, one GOP candidate is making a name for himself as the Islamophobia candidate: Herman Cain.

Earlier this week, Cain gave an interview to Christianity Today in which he declared that, "based upon the little knowledge that I have of the Muslim religion, you know, they have an objective to convert all infidels or kill them."

ThinkProgress caught up with the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza [on Saturday] at the Conservative Principles Conference in Des Moines, Iowa, to discuss his comments further. We asked him, in light of his statements on Islam, would he be comfortable appointing any Muslims in his administration. Rather than skirting the question or hedging his answer, as most presidential aspirants are wont to do, Cain was definitive: "No, I would not."

You'll note that Cain won a fairly significant Tea Party straw poll last month, is a major figure in the Tea Party, and is one of those on the right for whom the Tea Party and the Republican Party should be one and the same.

And now he's on record exposing himself as a bigot -- and as someone who apparently has no regard for the Constitution, which states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Much of the anti-Muslim bigotry within high-profile Republican circles -- say, among the likes of Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich -- is carefully constructed so as to appear not to be bigotry. (Consider, for example, the flap over the Park51 community center near Ground Zero.)

At least Cain is being honest with us.

American enough?

Guest post by Hamid M. Khan

Hamid M. Khan is a Rule of Law Adviser with the U.S. Institute of Peace in Kabul, Afghanistan, and a fellow with the Truman National Security Project in Washington D.C.

(Ed. note: This is Hamid's fifth guest post at The Reaction. You can find his previous posts here (on Pakistan), here and here (on Obama's Cairo address), and here (on revolution in Iran). -- MJWS)

**********

Recently, Rep. Peter King, with much fanfare and consternation, launched the House Committee on Homeland Security's hearings regarding "The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community's Response." While the fanfare for these most recent hearings has largely dissipated, given the past furor over the Islamic center in Manhattan, the approach of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, and, of course, the upcoming presidential campaign, it is unlikely this issue will die out, and American Muslims will likely have to stand up to answer questions about whether they are American enough.

Disheartening as it is, this ongoing inquisition represents nothing novel in our history. In fact, America's story is replete with chapters where politicians take pains to prod an entire polity to test whether they truly belong. Just ask African-Americans, the Irish, Italians, Jews, Catholics, or even the Japanese. More sadly perhaps is the fact that these same inquisitors will reflexively wrap themselves in the flag and swear an oath upon the Constitution, but fail to recognize them as living testimonials to a nation that has spent centuries, sometimes through great bloodshed, striving to recognize equality and unity despite diversity.

The blame, however, does not squarely rest with politicians. Another accomplice to the recent phobia rests with the media, which often fail to promote the stories of ordinary Muslims with as much effort as those extremists who sit on the fringes of both society and religion. Finally, American Muslims deserve some of the blame, not because they are somehow predisposed to extremist views (as if it were a pathogen only Muslims are susceptible to) but perhaps because we as a community have not shared our own unique experiences of being both American and Muslim with our friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens.

For example, what can be more American than being raised in rural Wyoming? Add to that biography an early childhood dedicated to watching cartoons, eating copious amounts of McDonald's, playing Nintendo, riding one's bike and considering Superman one's hero? How much would it matter if the same person happened to be the son of Pakistani immigrants and instead of going to Sunday school read the Qur'an, learned the five daily prayers, and did not eat pork? What would you think of this person if his classmates elected him twice as their high school class president or if he was a state champion in speech or a member of the National Honor Society? Would it still matter if he also fasted during Ramadan?

How would you would judge someone, who because of his parents' successes in United States, decided he would dedicate himself to a career in public service and, to that end, pursue degrees in politics and later earn a law degree? Would you consider this person an asset to the cause of America if Congress had awarded him a Truman Scholarship and he had worked in the United States House of Representatives, the United States Senate, or even the British House of Commons in London? What if I told you this person worked for a federal appeals court judge and later served as an assistant United States attorney? Is that proof enough, or does the fact that he drinks a Coke rather than a beer make him less American?

When 9/11 happened, like every other American, he witnessed the unspeakable horror as the Twin Towers fell, the Pentagon lay devastated, and the fields outside Shanksville, Pennsylvania were charred by the sacrifice of heroes. Rather than go on as usual, however, he openly challenged extremist positions under Islamic law, and in his spare time taught classes on the Islamic faith at two different universities and later turned away from a lucrative career in private practice for a full-time position teaching law to young students in Afghanistan so that they might avoid harboring a future al Qaeda in their homeland. Does it mean he is less American because he still offers alms to the poor because he sees it as a commandment from God?

Or is one sufficiently American if one were chosen to advise the U.S. Commander of Forces in Afghanistan about how an understanding of Islam and specifically Shari'a might be an advantage to winning hearts and minds to save American lives? How would you judge the same person if he decided to keep his wife and four young children behind in the United States to devote his energy, experience, and understanding of the Qur'an to help bring about peace to war-torn societies?

At the end of the day, there is no quaint definition of what it means to be an American. If our history has taught us anything, there are no set paths, only a shared set of values that are not often easily expressed. And even when they are, it is hard to imagine whether my experiences or the experiences of another could satisfy those who are so eager to declare whole groups of people as not one of us. In fact, these critics, at best, often only ask questions, but without listening to the answers. Perhaps it is in this fact that we find what is best about being American: that sometimes not answering these questions is enough.

Fuck you, Peter King, you bigoted piece of anti-Muslim shit

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Too strong? Maybe. I'm sorry if I've injured your delicate sensibilities. (No, not really.) But King* deserves no less for what he's doing.

This former IRA enthusiast -- an avid supporter of terrorism and of a group that had an awful lot of American support even as it targeted a close American friend and was called a terrorist group by the U.S. government -- has ramped up his hatred of Muslims and is holding hearings on Capitol Hill on the supposed Muslim threat to America. (Both Stewart and Colbert had good bits on this last night.)

King is a loathsome little bigot who has stacked the deck not with experts, not with people who actually know something about Islam, the Muslim-American community (which of course shouldn't be treated as monolithic), and terrorism (including the far greater threat, right-wing domestic terrorism) but, predictably enough, with, if I may borrow the term, dittoheads, those who share his bigotry, his view that the Muslim community is festering with terrorists (not good Irish ones targeting Britain, but bad Muslim ones targeting America).

But he wasn't able to silence his own critics, including Rep. Keith Ellison, who delivered an emotional rebuttal to King's efforts:

The first Muslim elected to Congress broke into tears Thursday as he delivered his opening remarks at a hearing on radicalization in the Muslim American community.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) became heavily emotional as he spoke about a 23-year-old New York Police Department cadet and paramedic named Mohammed Salman Hamdani.

Hamdani, a Muslim, was killed attempting to save people from the collapsing World Trade Center buildings on Sept. 11, 2001, following the terrorist attacks, Ellison said.

Here's some of what Ellison said, with the video below:

Let me close with a story, but remember that it's only one of many American stories that could be told. Mohammed Salman Hamdani was a 23-year-old paramedic, a New York City police cadet and a Muslim American. He was one of those brave first responders who tragically lost their lives in the 9/11 terrorist attacks almost a decade ago. As The New York Times eulogized, "He wanted to be seen as an all-American kid."

**********

Mr. Hamdani bravely sacrificed his life to try and help others on 9/11. After the tragedy some people tried to smear his character solely because of his Islamic faith. Some people spread false rumors and speculated that he was in league with the attackers only because he was Muslim. It was only when his remains were identified that these lies were fully exposed. Mohammed Salman Hamdani was a fellow American who gave his life for other Americans. His life should not be defined as a member of an ethnic group or a member of a religion, but as an American who gave everything for his fellow citizens.

* As I've stressed before, no, not that Peter King, that Peter King -- who seems to call himelf "Pete," perhaps to distinguish himself from the more famous other Peter King. Obviously.