Conservative Christians aren't Good Samaritans

More on the conservative hypocrisy re refugees:Retweeted Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte):

The way that so many Christians fall over themselves denying refuge to Syrians shows that their concept of Christian compassion is lacking.

Retweeted Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte):

To every self-identified Christian who denies Syrian refuge, I simply would ask them to read this:

Luke 10:25-37 New International Version (NIV)
The Parable of the Good Samaritan

Retweeted Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte):

And don’t tell me you’re afraid for your safety. Your own God told you to be afraid for your *soul* if you do not offer compassion.Be a Good Samaritan unless it's inconvenient or risky? Don't think that's what Jesus said.



Above: All the Christian hypocrites who aren't Good Samaritans.

The Republican Crisis Recycling Center: Syrian Refugee Edition

What's the difference between the Ebola virus and a Syrian refugee? Nothing, according to conservatives.

The Republican governors who are rejecting refugees are the same ones who allow our military veterans to be homeless and sleep on the streets and are willing to let poor people starve. They don't care about refugees because they don't care about humanity. They're cowards. Pitiful and despicable cowards.

Yep.



GOP Warns Refugees Likely To Be Driven To Terrorism By Way America Would Treat Them

For more on terrorism, see Let's Deport White Men and Republicans Allow Guns for Terrorists.

Let's deport white men

Let’s deport the white males: Will we coddle terrorists or rid ourselves of danger?An Open Letter to President Obama, and all candidates for President of the United States.

The violence of recent months has brought America to a moment of reckoning. We must decide who we are as a people: whether we will coddle terrorists in the name of so-called civil liberties, or stand firm to protect our women and children. The recent attacks have been characterized by a barbarous sadism that can’t be attributed to any ideology. Rather its a streak of pure evil, what we might call suicidal — even tribal — bloodlust.

Let me be clear: I am not a racist. I have friends of all races and religions. And yet political correctness can not erase the grim fact that the authors of these atrocities all belong to the same race, creed and gender.

Columbine Massacre was committed by White Male Protestants

Aurora Theatre massacre was committed by a White Male Protestant

Sandy Hook Massacre was committed by a White Male Protestant

Tucson Massacre was committed by a White Male Protestant

Roseburg Massacre was committed by a White Male Protestant

Charleston Massacre was committed by a White Male Protestant

Oak Creek Sikh Temple Massacre was committed by a White Male Protestant

San Ysidro McDonalds Massacre was committed by a White Male Protestant

UT Austin Tower Massacre was committed by a White Male Protestant

The Policy of Containment has Failed

From its earliest days, America has pursued policy to confine this dangerous race to institutions — such as Ivy League universities, state legislatures, and the United States Congress — where they would do the least possible harm to women, children, and people of color. However, WMPs eventually infiltrated nearly every aspect of our society, successfully executing such heinous terrorist plots as: enslaving Africans for 400 years, stealing a continent and murdering millions of Indians, enforcing Jim Crow segregation with mob lynchings.

Beginning in the 1950s, when it was evident that our great metropolises had been overrun with cells of WMPs, America began the most ambitious (and expensive) resettlement program of the modern era, shipping millions of white protestant boys, along with their sisters and parents, out of city limits to a ring of white-only colonies. Here, young WMPs were left to harmless diversions such as Little League, video games, and paintball contests, based on the theory that removing them from the threats constituted by the advances of women and brown people would mollify the murderous rage that had fueled their terrorism over the centuries.

Alas, the experiment failed.Or as someone said to sum it up:How can we possibly evaluate every white male Christian to make sure he has no plans to murder women and children?For more on terrorism, see Republicans Allow Guns for Terrorists and Syrian Refugees = Jewish Refugees.

Republicans allow guns for terrorists

Republicans bow down to ISIS, hint at shutdown over refugee funding

Republicans are running out of things to shut the government down over. The next shutdown may be over parking privileges or trash pickup.

Ted Cruz, ISIS propagandist: It’s almost like the GOP wants another massive Middle East war

Republicans—who clearly see terrorism as an opportunity to score political points—are pandering as hard as they can.

Thanks to the NRA Over 2000 Suspected Terrorists Were Able to Buy Guns in the U.S.

We need a ban on terrorist guns to go along with a ban on terrorist refugees, said no Republican ever. ‪#‎hypocrites‬

Texas GOP lawmaker: Keep Syrian refugees out of our state because it’s too easy to get a gun here

Syrians are too risky! They could get guns and start shooting up schools and churches like Americans!Paul Ryan ‏@SpeakerRyan
We should not bring Syrian refugees into this country unless we can be 100 percent confident that they are not here to do us harm.Fine, then we shouldn't let people buy guns unless we can be 100% confident they won't harm us.

Can we deport Republicans if we're not 100% sure they won't harm us?

For more on terrorism, see Syrian Refugees = Jewish Refugees and Republicans Afraid of Syrian Refugees.

Syrian refugees = Jewish refugees

Comparing this refugee crisis with a previous refugee crisis, we see little has changed:Retweeted Avraham Bronstein (@AvBronstein):

In the 1930s and 1940s enough Americans thought Jewish refugees may have included Soviet or German agents. ‪#‎NeverAgain‬ ‪#‎SyrianRefugees‬

Retweeted Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani):

I tweet this every day now, but 169,000 Bosnian Muslim refugees came to the US in the 1990s, from a radicalized warzone. Not one terrorist.

Retweeted Terrell Lewis (@SgBz):

Thank goodness the innkeeper wasn't a Republican Governor ‪#‎p2‬ ‪#‎tcot‬ ‪#‎Christian‬ https://t.co/IZJiiPzfy1Retweeted Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani):

America is literally formed as a country by people who ran away from persecution...

Retweeted Historical Opinion (@HistOpinion):

US Jan 20 ’39: Should the US government permit 10,000 mostly Jewish refugee children to come in from Germany? https://t.co/5cFs5RabQn

"If they're not white Christians," said America, "we don't care. Let 'em die in the Holocaust. They're not our responsibility."Retweeted southpaw (@nycsouthpaw):

What benefits has the US ever gained from admitting displaced persons? https://t.co/EpgS1CkjFnDr. Quimby on Twitter:

America...founded by cowardly Europeans who couldn't take the heat.

Retweeted Pete Fraser (@petefrasermusic):

One of these was in today's Daily Mail and one is nazi propaganda. Take your time. https://t.co/VjPYrwYKvS


If you're a Syrian refugee, you can move next door to me. I won't mind.

For more on terrorism, see Republicans Afraid of Syrian Refugees and First Thoughts After Paris Attacks.

Republicans afraid of Syrian refugees

Congressmen Pressure GOP Leaders To Strip Funding For Syrian Refugees

The US is so paranoid about Syrian refugees that it’s letting barely any in

Refugees aren't just slipping into the US. Screening takes two years, and it's nearly impossible for people to pass.

They want a clash of civilizations: After Paris, we need grown-ups, not apocalyptic warriorsRepublicans are gleeful at getting to play war, except with real people's lives instead of toy soldiers. ‪#‎bomb‬ ‪#‎kill‬Fearing Fear Itself

"An organized attempt to destroy Western civilization"? No, an organized attempt to sow panic, which is different.

Do conservatives seriously think ISIS is going to bomb a million buildings or kill a billion Westerners? You have to be a blithering idiot to think they endanger our "civilization."

Ann Coulter’s odious anti-Muslim rants: Of course she’s exploiting the Paris terror attacks to entertain racist, xenophobic fansShe happily conflates "Muslim," "refugee" and "ISIS," untroubled about maligning 1.5 billion practitioners of Islam.Chris Christie is winning the a**hole primary with his callous refugee stance: Not even “3 year old orphans” welcome

Why exactly are conservatives afraid of a handful of terrorists? Because conservatives are cowards? Wimps? Children? They're literally cowering from 3-year-olds (Muslim) babies!

Of course the conservatives cowards are mainly in red states. I thought that's why you had guns, you yellow bellies. So you could shoot the brown-skinned terrorists.

Are you shivering and quivering too much to shoot straight? Afraid of shooting yourself in the foot or penis instead? Or what, exactly?

Heartbreaking Photo Of A 4-Year-Old Syrian Girl ‘Surrendering’ To A Photojournalist

Chris Christie wet his pants at the sight of this "terrorist"!

Obama torches GOP on Syrian refugees: 'Now they are scared of three-year-old orphans'

Republicans: Afraid of everything but white male Christians with guns!

For more on terrorism, see First Thoughts After Paris Attacks and America the Biggest Loser.

First thoughts after Paris attacks

Initial thoughts after the terrorist attacks on Paris:

So many people suddenly enraged after not caring at all the day before. In other words, the sheer idiocy of changing your views after the ‪#‎ParisAttacks‬. So you admit you were ignorant about Islam, terrorism, immigration, surveillance, etc. until last week? Okay, geniuses, thanks for letting us know.

So we hate ISIS. We hate Assad, who's fighting ISIS. And we hate the refugees fleeing ISIS and Assad. "Brown = evil," the Euro-American credo since 1492.

WATCH: CNN Host Insists French Muslim Accept ‘Responsibility’ For Paris Attacks

Yep, conservatives are racist hypocrites. You'll never hear them say this after a conservative Christian shoots a congregation or torches a church.

For more on terrorism, see America the Biggest Loser and White People Aren't Called Terrorists.

America the biggest loser

“The U.S. often goes to war very overconfident about how the war will turn out”

We've lost four of our last five wars, despite being the superpower. Dominic Tierney explains why this happens

By Michael SchulsonSince the end of World War II, the United States has fought five major ground wars—one in Korea, one in Vietnam, two in Iraq, and one in Afghanistan. By many measures, we’ve lost four of them (the first Gulf War is the one clear exception). The U.S. may be the world’s dominant military power, but we seem to have lost the ability to win.

Dominic Tierney’s new book, “The Right Way to Lose a War,” begins with a depressing premise: the United States will probably lose again. “We live in an age of unwinnable wars, where decisive triumph has proved to be a pipe dream,” he writes. For Tierney, a professor at Swarthmore College and a contributing editor at The Atlantic, the solution is not just to prepare to win wars. It’s to develop clearer plans for how to cut our losses and run when the situation demands it, instead of becoming bogged down in a protracted, fruitless conflict.

In our era of ambiguous, stateless wars, Tierney argues, “losing the right way is a victory.” He argues that the military needs to be ready to surge (adding more troops, briefly), talk (spin the narrative) and then leave (before it’s too late). The strategy, Tierney suggests, is less about pride, and more about pragmatism—and saving lives.

Over the phone, Tierney spoke with Salon about ISIS, nation-building and why the military destroyed all its counterinsurgency notes after the Vietnam War.

You’re talking about losing wars. I’m an American. Why does this make me feel so uncomfortable?

American culture is very much a victory culture, a culture of competition and winning. The notion of cutting losses or dealing with an unwinnable situation might seem vaguely unsettling and un-American. But the reality is that four out of five wars that the U.S. has fought in recent decades have become unwinnable. Although it might make us uncomfortable, I think it’s necessary for us to think seriously about the question.Comment:  I've talked about this subject often--especially after 9/11. The whole premise of invading Afghanistan and Iraq was to get even for the terrorist attack. Bush didn't consider any alternatives and didn't have any fallback plan. It was all schoolyard machismo: Muslims hit us hard so we'll hit them harder.

For more on the subject, see America's Cultural Mindset.

White people aren't called terrorists

White People Aren't Called Terrorists Unless They Liberate Animals, Apparently

By Mark KarlinIt has been clear for years that the US government and mass media's application of the word "terrorism" is highly subjective. If the US kills civilians in drone attacks it is, according to the White House, not terrorism; it's self-defense. If a white male gun enthusiast kills three Muslim students, it's not terrorism; it's a dispute over parking.

The examples of how violent acts committed by nation-states or white males are not terrorism are virtually endless. That doesn't just apply to the United States, of course. It is the prerogative of white eurocentric culture to attribute violent acts--even on a large scale--of members of the dominant classes to individual pathology rather than "terrorism." BuzzFlash at Truthout is hardly the first site to point out that Anders Behring Breivik, who killed 77 children and adults in Norway in 2011, is generally described as an extremist, radical or mass murderer, but not a terrorist. On the other hand, the term is often used automatically when a Muslim commits an act of violence.

Breivik's acts, however, actually mirror those of the killers in Paris and Copenhagen, who were immediately branded as terrorists because of their Islamic association. According to an article on the Australian Broadcasting Company (ABC) website, "At the time of the massacre, Breivik said his actions were 'cruel but necessary' to save Europe from Islam and multiculturalism." In short, he had an agenda to "terrorize" Norway and Europe based on his notions of Aryan supremacy. Yet, no government, to our knowledge, warned its citizens of the terrorist threat of Aryan supremacists after Breivik's carnage, even though he slaughtered nearly 80 people - mostly children at a camp on an island.

This double standard about who is labeled a terrorist and who is not is indicative of the malleable use of the term by Western nations in order to manipulate public opinion.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Americans Worse Than ISIS and Right-Wingers Ignore Right-Wing Terrorism.

Hicks = "angry, armed, and white"

Another day, another white terrorist nutjob with a gun killing innocent people.

Angry, Armed and White: The Typical Profile of America's Most Violent Extremists

White men, usually right-wingers, are the dominant threat.

By Steven RosenfeldWe can safely say that Craig Stephen Hicks fits the profile of the most common type of domestic violent extremist—a white man with grievances and guns. Whether he was provoked by road rage, rage against neighbors who wore traditional Muslim clothing, or other simmering grudges and pathologies, his alleged killing of three young Muslims underscores a trend that mainstream U.S. media avoids: that the face of violent extremism in America since 9/11 is predominantly white. Muslims in America, while not exempt from crime, simply do not compare.

There’s no shortage of crime statistics confirming this. A 2001-2015 “Homegrown Extremism” analysis by the New America Foundation parsed the “ethnicity, age, gender and citizenship” of people who killed or violently attacked others, whether they were motivated by jihadist philosophies or other “right wing, left wing or idiosyncratic beliefs.” Of 448 extremists counted, white men who were U.S. citizens outnumbered every other demographic by wide margins.

“Quite a few reports agree, that more Americans have been killed by the radical right since 9/11 than by jihadists,” said Mark Potok, spokesman for the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate crimes and focuses on the radical right.And:“The one thing we know is that the psychology has always been the same,” Joe Navarro, a former FBI agent and co-founder of the agency’s Behavioral Analysis Program, said in a Q&A in the SPLC report. “By that, I mean you have individuals who are collecting wounds, they’re looking for social ills, or things that have gone wrong, and they are nourishing these things that they’re ideating, that they’re thinking about. The solution for them is violence.”

“What they have in common is that once they begin to ideate this philosophy, whatever their passion is, whatever their hatred is, whatever their ideology is, they certainly all begin to communicate this to people around them,” Navarro said. “And when we go back and do the post-event analysis, we find that they were talking about this, they were telling people about this, and the people either ignored it, didn’t pay attention or didn’t think it would go any further.”

Potok, the SPLC spokesman, said that domestic law enforcement did not want to believe that white people could be terrorists—or even violent extremists—until Timothy McVeigh bombed the Oklahoma federal building in 1995. Then they shifted gears and focused on many domestic anti-government and ideological groups. But that focus changed, he said, after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, as law enforcement again saw radical Islam as the primary threat.Other posting demolishes the claim that because a parking dispute was involved, it can't be a hate crime.

Chapel Hill Murders Are About More Than a Parking Dispute

People miss the point that the rationale for the rampage need not amount to an either/or.

By Cynthia R. GreenleeDenial may spring from the deep recesses of the unconscious—a protective mechanism that shields us from harsh realities until our minds can make sense of them—but it also comes from willful blindness. And that’s the distinguishing characteristic of my third group of Facebook friends. That final group insists that we should withhold judgment over the causes of Craig Hicks's mass killing and that, as much of the mainstream media have reported, the shooting was merely the culmination of a parking conflict. They challenge their Facebook friends to prove that Hicks's fatal action was a hate crime, challenges they couch in terms of rationality, a desire to know all the facts and a belief that the law is the arbiter of fairness.

The point they miss is that the rationale for Hicks’s rampage need not amount to an either/or. It’s not hate crime or parking dispute. Parking disputes are rarely just about occupying one asphalt rectangle. Fights over space—whether in subways or suburban neighborhoods—are more often contests about privilege: Who gets to be in this space? Who dictates the use and control of the space? And what happens when people who aren't like some pre-determined and overdetermined notion of what constitutes "us" gets in our space? A parking crunch—and I acknowledge the rancor that can come when fences have not made good neighbors—did not pull the trigger. A man did, a man we know, at the very least, to have a measure of antipathy toward the religious of all faiths. Of the three people he shot, execution-style, all were observant Muslims, and two were women who wore a style of headscarf that made that clear.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Patriarchal Culture Encourages Violence and White = Sick, Brown = Deviant.

Americans worse than ISIS

More on the subject of Obama Compares ISIS to Crusaders and What the Crusades Controversy Is About:

GOP Lawmaker Says Obama Defended ISIS At Prayer Breakfast

Obama defends ISIS by comparing them to every Christian who killed, tortured, or enslaved someone. In other words, Obama thinks ISIS is as bad as America!

ISIS responds, "How dare you compare us to centuries of Euro-American thugs and killers?!"

Here are 8 Christian Terrorist Organizations That Equal ISIS

History of Lynchings in the South Documents Nearly 4,000 Names

Keep trying, ISIS losers! So far we're like a thousand times more barbaric than you are!

And some "wisdom" from a few months ago:

Christian activist calls for holy war: ‘Islam has no place in civilized society’

We need a holy war to stop the Muslims' holy war because holy wars have no place in civilized society!

The holy war to end all holy wars! Just like World War I, except holy!

For more on Christian terrorism, see Report Documents Right-Wing Terrorism and The Logical Conclusion of Extremism.

Below:  There were Americans in the Crusades? Okay, if you say so.

What the Crusades controversy is about

More on the subject of Obama Compares ISIS to Crusaders:

Christian Violence: Obama Touches a Sore Spot in American Politics

By Peter d'ErricoWhat are these people upset about? One wonders whether Gilmore and Donohue really don't know the history of Christianity, or if they believe this history should be hidden. Given the sad state of education in the United States, the possibility of their ignorance exists. Equally sadly, the possibility exists that they know this history and want to hide it.5 Right-Wing Freak-Outs Over the President's Completely Accurate Comments on Christianity

The pundits forget that Christians are capable of “terrible deeds in the name of Christ.”

By Amanda MarcotteThese statements are 100% true. But the right has reacted as if Obama burned the American flag in the Oval Office. Perhaps it’s because the National Prayer Breakfast was designed to strong-arm national politicians into paying fealty to the religious right on pain of being accused of being anti-Christian. Or perhaps it was just because they’re bored. Here are five more ridiculously over-the-top conservative reactions to the President saying something that is objectively, demonstrably true about Western history.Let's be clear: The Obama Crusades controversy is over whether it's okay to hate Muslims

By Max FisherTo be crystal clear: this is not a fight over the fine-grain imperfections of Obama's historical analogy or over the implications for US foreign policy. It is a fight over whether it's okay to hate Muslims, to apply sweeping and negative stereotypes to the one-fifth of humanity that follows a particular religion. A number of Americans, it seems, are clinging desperately to their anti-Muslim bigotry and are furious at Obama for trying to take that away from them.Comment:  The controversy is about making it okay to hate Muslims and not okay to criticize Christians. Today's conservatives want to turn America into a Christian theocracy. They can't do that if people understand how Christians have persecuted and killed everyone who was different from the white male norm.

For more on Christian terrorism, see Report Documents Right-Wing Terrorism and The Logical Conclusion of Extremism.

Obama compares ISIS to Crusaders

The latest manufactured "controversy" by Fox News:

Fox Hosts Explode At Obama For Talking About The Crusades At Prayer Breakfast

By Brendan JamesThe hosts of "Fox & Friends" were not amused on Friday by President Obama's reminder to Christians that the Muslim world has not been the only corner of the globe to deal with deadly religious extremism.

"How shocked were you," Brian Kilmeade asked viewers, "about the President's remarks yesterday at that prayer breakfast, equating the Crusades in the year 1095 to what we're experiencing today and witnessing with ISIS and their brutality?"

The three co-hosts then angrily talked over each other while introducing the clip of Obama speaking on Thursday at the National Prayer Breakfast.

The footage showed Obama discussing the Islamic State terror group and religious violence more broadly by mentioning the Crusades, initiated by Pope Urban II. The President said Christians should not get on a "high horse" about religious barbarism."So he's saying the Catholic Church was the ISIS of its time," said Doocy. "So try telling that to the pope who is going to visit Washington, D.C."

Give me an audience with the pope and I'll be glad to tell him. We can discuss the papal bulls about converting the "savage" Indians.

Right-Wing Christians Angered By Obama’s Comparison Of ISIS To The Crusades

The Foolish, Historically Illiterate, Incredible Response to Obama's Prayer Breakfast Speech

A history of Christian terrorism

Sorry, Fox: Obama Was Right About Christianity's 'Terrible Deeds'

By Christia MercerConservatives across the country are freaking out about President Obama’s claim that “people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ” at the National Prayer Breakfast. Everyone from Rush Limbaugh and Jim Gilmore to Megyn Kelly and the hosts of Fox & Friends is venting about it. Unfortunately, the president is exactly right.

Every century in the history of Christianity is full of examples. But one of the most vivid cases of Christian-motivated bloodshed is what was happening exactly four hundred years ago, in the winter of 1615. Long-standing religious hatred and political tensions were escalating across Europe. When spiritual leaders incited violence, their followers were keen to comply. The means of killing were gruesome and imaginative. Arms were ripped from living torsos, writhing bodies stretched on racks, and men’s severed genitalia burned before their dying eyes. Kings, princes and politicians employed draconian measures to squelch criticism and halt change.

A century before that, Martin Luther’s attempt to purify Christianity of its papal poisons led to decades of struggles across Europe. More than 100,000 poorly armed farmers were slaughtered in 1524-25 when they took Luther’s teachings to imply greater social justice. Over the course of the 16th century, villages were razed, schools closed and disease left unchecked. By 1615, the continent was teaming with terrorist plots, counter-plots, and spies. But when Catholic councilors were sent to Prague and summarily tossed by the Protestant assembly out palace windows, a line was crossed. The so-called Defenestration of Prague of 1618 marks the official start of the Thirty Years’ War.

In 2015, longstanding religious hatred and political wrangling are again sweeping Europe with their own shadowy sources in the last century. Kings, princes and politicians again employ draconian measures to control criticism and stop change. In this global struggle, villages have been destroyed, schools bombed, and disease left unchecked. Nor have our contemporaries lacked imagination in their violence. Schoolgirls have been kidnapped, journalists beheaded, and interrogation methods enhanced. Our cycle of violence is much the same as that of our predecessors. Unchecked power and ignorance promote loathing, leading to increased viciousness, intolerance, and more hatred. Chérif Kouachi, one of the men responsible for the Charlie Hebdo massacre, was first moved to radicalism by images of American soldiers humiliating Muslims at Abu Ghraib prison. Brutality and stupidity beget more of the same.Yes, ISIS Burned a Man Alive: White Americans Did the Same Thing to Thousands of Black People

The United States practiced a unique cultural ritual that was as least as gruesome as the "medieval" punishments meted out by ISIS against its foes.

By Chauncey DeVegaISIS burned Muadh al Kasasbeh, a captured Jordanian fighter pilot, to death. They doused him with an accelerant. His captors set him on fire. Muadh al Kasasbeh desperately tried to put out the flames. ISIS recorded Muadh al Kasasbeh's immolation, produced a video designed to intimidate their enemies, and then circulated it online.

ISIS's burning alive of Muadh al Kasasbeh has been denounced as an act of savagery, barbarism, and wanton cruelty--one from the "dark ages" and not of the modern world.

American Exceptionalism blinds those who share its gaze to uncomfortable facts and truths about their own country.

For almost a century, the United States practiced a unique cultural ritual that was as least as gruesome as the "medieval" punishments meted out by ISIS against its foes.When America behaved like ISIS: Jesse Washington and the Bible Belt’s dark history of public lynchings

How dare ISIS emulate racist Americans from the last century?!

What would happen if Obama stated, "George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves," or "US soldiers massacred Indians at Wounded Knee"? Censure, hearings, perhaps impeachment?

A president could get in trouble for reading a history textbook aloud. Seriously.

And a relevant tweet:Retweeted Murtaza Hussain (@MazMHussain):

Its too bad Obama couldn't have made this point but its clear the last Crusade was in 2003, not ~800 years ago: http://t.co/KsWc7Ngzsa

Donald Rumsfeld's holy war: How President Bush's Iraq briefings came with quotes from the BibleChristians aren't to blame?

In the following, Russell Moore, President of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said, "The evil actions that he mentioned were clearly outside the moral parameters of Christianity itself and were met with overwhelming moral opposition from Christians." Wow, that's roughly 100% wrong.

Why Obama Is Right About Christian Violence

By Jack JenkinsJackson and Limbaugh’s dubious claims to Christianity notwithstanding, the two main assertions underlying most of these arguments are both absurd and, arguably, unChristian. The first—that violence committed in the name of Christ is somehow exempt from criticism because it happened in the past—ignores history and reality. Like it or not, horrendous torture happened during the Inquisition and the era of slavery, both of which were justified using biblical scripture. And the argument that the Crusades—which resulted in the deaths of untold thousands—were only in response to Muslim provocation is highly contested among historians.

More importantly, while these events are long past, these critics are apparently tone deaf to the numerous modern examples of violence perpetrated by people claiming to represent Christ. In 2011, Anders Behring Breivik, a self-professed Christian, launched a horrific assault in Oslo, Norway to defend “Christian Europe,” using an arsenal of weapons to kill 77 people—most of whom were teenagers. In November of last year, suspected Christian terrorist Larry McQuilliams mounted a full-scale attack on Austin, Texas, firing off more than 100 shots in the city before embarking on a botched attempt to burn down the Mexican Consulate. And in central Africa, the Lord’s Resistance Army (which, similar to ISIS, seeks to establish a theocratic state based on the Ten Commandments) forcibly recruits child soldiers, terrorizes local villages, and is thought to be responsible for the deaths of 100,000 people in Uganda and the displacement of 1.7 million in the greater region, according to the United Nations.

One wonders if Jackson and others would be so willing to “defend” Christianity’s apparently sinless history to the faces of those 60,000 to 100,000 child soldiers, youngsters who were ripped from their homes, tortured brutally, and forced by the LRA to run needlessly into battle—all ostensibly in the name of Christ.

In addition, the second argument directed at Obama’s statements—that violence in the name of Christ was always met with overwhelming moral opposition from Christians—is only true when examined through the lens of several centuries of history. Few senior members of the Catholic church would defend the Crusades today, but they were waged with broad support in their time, and the institution of slavery took centuries to dismantle.More Christian atrocities

The Right-Wing Doesn’t Want to Talk About Christian Atrocities, So Let’s Talk About Christian Atrocities

Tens of thousands of Muslims flee Christian militias in Central African Republic

Comment:  For more on Christian terrorism, see Report Documents Right-Wing Terrorism and The Logical Conclusion of Extremism.

Hypocrisy of free-speech fundamentalists

Mourning the Parisian Journalists Yet Noticing the Hypocrisy

By Rabbi Michael LernerI had to wonder about the way the massacre in Paris is being depicted and framed by the Western media as a horrendous threat to Western civilization, freedom of speech and freedom of the press, I wondered about the over-heated nature of this description. It didn't take me long to understand how problematic that framing really is.

When right-wing "pro-Israel" fanatics frequently sent me death threats, physically attacked my house and painted on the gates statements about me being "a Nazi" or "a self-hating Jew," and called in bomb threats to Tikkun, the magazine I edit, there was no attention given to this by the media, no cries of "our civilization depends on freedom of the press" or demands to hunt down those involved (the FBI and police received our complaints, but never reported back to us about what they were doing to protect us or find the assailants).And:There is a deeper level in which the discourse seems so misguided. As Tikkun editor-at-large Peter Gabel has pointed out, there is no recognition in the media of the dehumanizing way that so much of the media deals with whoever is the perceived threatening "other" of the day. That media was outraged at the attempt by some North Korean allied group to scare people away from watching a movie ridiculing and then planning to assassinate the current (immoral) ruler of Korea, never wondering how we'd respond if a similar movie had been made ridiculing and planning the assassination of an American president. Similarly, the media has refused to even consider what it would mean to a French Muslim, living among Muslims who are economically marginalized and portrayed as nothing but terrorists, their religious garb banned in public, their religion demeaned, to encounter a humor magazine that ridiculed the one thing that gives them some sense of community and higher purpose, namely Mohammed and the religion he founded.In Solidarity with a Free Press: Some More Blasphemous Cartoons

By Glenn GreenwaldNor is it the case that threatening violence in response to offensive ideas is the exclusive province of extremists claiming to act in the name of Islam. Terrence McNally’s 1998 play “Corpus Christi,” depicting Jesus as gay, was repeatedly cancelled by theaters due to bomb threats. Larry Flynt was paralyzed by an evangelical white supremacist who objected to Hustler‘s pornographic depiction of inter-racial couples. The Dixie Chicks were deluged with death threats and needed massive security after they publicly criticized George Bush for the Iraq War, which finally forced them to apologize out of fear. Violence spurred by Jewish and Christian fanaticism is legion, from abortion doctors being murdered to gay bars being bombed to a 45-year-old brutal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza due in part to the religious belief (common in both the U.S. and Israel) that God decreed they shall own all the land. And that’s all independent of the systematic state violence in the west sustained, at least in part, by religious sectarianism.

The New York Times’ David Brooks today claims that anti-Christian bias is so widespread in America–which has never elected a non-Christian president–that “the University of Illinois fired a professor who taught the Roman Catholic view on homosexuality.” He forgot to mention that the very same university just terminated its tenure contract with Professor Steven Salaita over tweets he posted during the Israeli attack on Gaza that the university judged to be excessively vituperative of Jewish leaders, and that the journalist Chris Hedges was just disinvited to speak at the University of Pennsylvania for the Thought Crime of drawing similarities between Israel and ISIS.

That is a real taboo–a repressed idea–as powerful and absolute as any in the United States, so much so that Brooks won’t even acknowledge its existence. It’s certainly more of a taboo in the U.S. than criticizing Muslims and Islam, criticism which is so frequently heard in mainstream circles–including the U.S. Congress–that one barely notices it any more.

This underscores the key point: there are all sorts of ways ideas and viewpoints are suppressed in the west. When those demanding publication of these anti-Islam cartoons start demanding the affirmative publication of those ideas as well, I’ll believe the sincerity of their very selective application of free speech principles. One can defend free speech without having to publish, let alone embrace, the offensive ideas being targeted. But if that’s not the case, let’s have equal application of this new principle.As a Muslim, I’m fed up with the hypocrisy of the free speech fundamentalists

The response to the inexcusable murder of Charlie Hebdo’s staff has proved that many liberals are guilty of double standards when it comes to giving offence.

By Mehdi HasanIn the midst of all the post-Paris grief, hypocrisy and hyperbole abounds. Yes, the attack was an act of unquantifiable evil; an inexcusable and merciless murder of innocents. But was it really a “bid to assassinate” free speech (ITV’s Mark Austin), to “desecrate” our ideas of “free thought” (Stephen Fry)? It was a crime–not an act of war–perpetrated by disaffected young men; radicalised not by drawings of the Prophet in Europe in 2006 or 2011, as it turns out, but by images of US torture in Iraq in 2004.

Please get a grip. None of us believes in an untrammelled right to free speech. We all agree there are always going to be lines that, for the purposes of law and order, cannot be crossed; or for the purposes of taste and decency, should not be crossed. We differ only on where those lines should be drawn.

Has your publication, for example, run cartoons mocking the Holocaust? No? How about caricatures of the 9/11 victims falling from the twin towers? I didn’t think so (and I am glad it hasn’t). Consider also the “thought experiment” offered by the Oxford philosopher Brian Klug. Imagine, he writes, if a man had joined the “unity rally” in Paris on 11 January “wearing a badge that said ‘Je suis Chérif’”–the first name of one of the Charlie Hebdo gunmen. Suppose, Klug adds, he carried a placard with a cartoon mocking the murdered journalists. “How would the crowd have reacted? . . . Would they have seen this lone individual as a hero, standing up for liberty and freedom of speech? Or would they have been profoundly offended?” Do you disagree with Klug’s conclusion that the man “would have been lucky to get away with his life”?

Let’s be clear: I agree there is no justification whatsoever for gunning down journalists or cartoonists. I disagree with your seeming view that the right to offend comes with no corresponding responsibility; and I do not believe that a right to offend automatically translates into a duty to offend.So many Christian hypocrites

More on the hypocrisy of those who would stand with Charlie:

Vox got no threats for posting Charlie Hebdo cartoons, dozens for covering Islamophobia

By Max Fisher and Amanda TaubThough we do enjoy a readership among Muslims inside and outside of the United States, some of whom have not hesitated to express displeasure or worse at our coverage of stories such as the Israel-Palestine conflict, none has seen the Charlie Hebdo cartoons as worth sending an angry email or even an annoyed tweet, much less a threat of violence.

Our coverage of Islamophobia has brought a very different response. Articles decrying anti-Muslim bigotry and attacks on mosques have been met with dozens of threats on email and social media.

The most common states a desire that jihadist militants will murder the offending writer: a recent email hoped that Muslims will "behead you one day" so that "we will never have to read your trash again." Some directly threaten violence themselves, or imply it with statements such as "May you rot in hell."

Others express a desire to murder all Muslims—one simply read "I agree with maher Kill them all"—also often implying the emailed journalist is themselves Muslim. One pledge to attack Vox writers begins, "Fuck you and any cunt who believes in allah."Conservatives' Charlie Hebdo Hypocrisy: 5 Freak-Outs Over 'Blasphemous' Depictions of Christianity

Conservatives are crowing about free speech rights of Charlie Hebdo. What about when Christianity is the butt of the joke?

By Amanda MarcotteRoss Douthat of the New York Times wrote, “If a large enough group of someones is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization, and when that scenario obtains it isn’t really a liberal civilization any more.”

Of course, Douthat, realizing his great affection for blasphemy will last only as long as needed to score this political point but wanting to reserve the right to denounce it when Christians are the ones being teased, tried to come up with an elaborate rationalization for why blasphemy is admirable when aimed at Islam but deplorable when the hurt feelings belong to Christians. It all goes to show how thoroughly phony this conservative enthusiasm for robust speech protections and a rowdy public discourse really is, because it will all be abandoned the second their own gods are mocked. Lest there be any doubt about that, here are some of the greatest hits of conservatives demanding censorship of what they believe are blasphemous messages.And:The double standard—brave if you blaspheme Islam, nasty if you mock Christianity—is breathtaking.

While the whole thing taught me that I’m better off as a writer than a campaigner, the larger lesson was that Christian conservatives are humorless and censorious when faced with mockery of their own faith. It’s surreal now to see the American right pose as if they have always supported those willing to tip sacred cows. In reality, they are swift to try to silence those who would ridicule their religious beliefs, or even, as some of these examples show, simply hold their beliefs up for examination. Luckily, Christian conservatives mostly turn to nonviolent means to silence their critics.

But don’t mistake the current enthusiasm for blasphemy for anything but a politically convenient pose. Next time someone mocks the Christian faith, expect all this support for blasphemers to disappear in a puff of smoke.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Charlie Hebdo's Racist Cartoons.

Charlie Hebdo's racist cartoons

In the Wake of Charlie Hebdo, Free Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Criticism

By Jacob CanfieldWhen faced with a terrorist attack against a satirical newspaper, the appropriate response seems obvious. Don’t let the victims be silenced. Spread their work as far as it can possibly go. Laugh in the face of those savage murderers who don’t understand satire.

In this case, it is the wrong response.

Here’s what’s difficult to parse in the face of tragedy: yes, Charlie Hebdo is a French satirical newspaper. Its staff is white. Its cartoons often represent a certain, virulently racist brand of French xenophobia. While they generously claim to ‘attack everyone equally,’ the cartoons they publish are intentionally anti-Islam, and frequently sexist and homophobic.And:Now, I understand that calling someone a ‘racist asshole’ after their murder is a callous thing to do, and I don’t do it lightly. This isn’t ambiguous, though: the editorial staff of Hebdo consistently aimed to provoke Muslims. They ascribe to the same edgy-white-guy mentality that many American cartoonists do: nothing is sacred, sacred targets are funnier, lighten up, criticism is censorship. And just like American cartoonists, they and their supporters are wrong. White men punching down is not a recipe for good satire, and needs to be called out. People getting upset does not prove that the satire was good. And, this is the hardest part, the murder of the satirists in question does not prove that their satire was good. Their satire was bad, and remains bad. Their satire was racist, and remains racist.Not Just a Joke: Reflections on Free Speech, Violence and Mislabeled Heroism

By Tim WiseIt strikes me that we should be able to roundly condemn the senseless and barbaric murders of journalists while still managing to have a rational conversation about free speech, in which empty platitudes about heroism need play no part. For instance, I believe it is possible to agree that free speech is an essential value, and that journalists should have the right to say what they want—even to offend others—without then proceeding to act as though every utterance (just because people have a right to it) is therefore worth defending as to its substance, and that free speech protects one from being critiqued for the things one says.

What I mean is this: I have a right, I suppose, to stand in the middle of Times Square and shout racial slurs or insult peoples’ religions. I could, for instance, stand on a soapbox outside the TKTS booth and say things about the Prophet Mohammed or Jesus or Mary. I could call them all kinds of vile things, and all of it would be protected by the Constitution. And I surely should be able to do that without fear of being murdered for it. This last point in particular is so obvious as to be beyond debate, I would hope. But if I do this, whether in Times Square or in print, it makes me an asshole, and one who deserves to be labeled as such. Not a hero, but an asshole. And I don’t become a hero just because some of the people I happened to insult (and was trying to insult) end up being even bigger assholes than me, and so dangerous and unstable that they decide to hurt me. In that case I am simply the unlucky victim of a bigger and more evil asshole who was unsatisfied with the pen or keyboard as a weapon and decided to use something more deadly. Nothing more and nothing less.

People seem to confuse the principle of free speech with the idea that one’s speech should be protected from pushback; and while violent pushback is always wrong—always—I am more than a little uncomfortable with the idea that we should make heroes out of those whose job appears to have been insulting people they deemed inferior (whether because of culture or because they were just “silly superstitious” believers who deserve ridicule because Richard Dawkins or Bill Maher say so). I’m especially uncomfortable with the political canonization we’re expected to endorse for these satirists, because historically, satire has always been about barbs aimed at those who are more powerful than oneself (the elite, royalty, the dominant social, economic, political or religious group), rather than being aimed down the ladder at those with less power. In the old days, when the King would bring in the jester or the royal fool to tell jokes and entertain the nobility, the court comic didn’t spend 20 minutes doing “can you believe how bad those peasants smell” jokes; rather, he told jokes at the expense of the nobility. The King and his royal prerogatives were the target of ridicule.

So whereas it would be legitimate satire for Muslims to satirize their own extremists in countries where Muslims hold power (and this is done by the way, more than most of us realize), in France, satire aimed at Muslims, who are the targets of organized attempts to restrict their rights and even their presence in the country, is not brave; it’s piling on. Likewise, for Jews to satirize Palestinians in Israel would be asshole behavior, while satirizing the nation’s Jewish religious leaders who have such outsized influence on state politics would be the very definition of legitimate satire. In the U.S., where Christians hold the bulk of political and economic power, satirizing the religious right is quite different from satirizing Muslims who are being targeted in regular hate crimes and who are facing communities trying to block them from having mosques in which to worship.Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie: A Critical View

By Sean EliasThe ridiculous display of support for ‘Charlie,’ particularly in the news media, is disconcerting and demonstrates that many people are equally as uninformed and culturally insensitive as those who promoted the anti-Islamist cartoons. Since the attack, most news outlets have ignored the racism and Islam-tarnishing of Charlie Hebdo and are in a rush to glorify the magazine and deify their racist cartoonists. Ignoring the potential of further inflaming ethno-racial tensions and promoting further anti-Muslim bigotry, a number of media giants, such as the Washington Post, have even decided to reprint the blasphemous cartoons of Muhammad in defiance of what they feel is a threat to free speech.

To state that what occurred is “an attack on free speech” is misguided and plainly ignorant. This is a destructive myth espoused by most Western media outlets in their discussion of this event. See, for example, John Avlon’s The Daily Beast article, “Why We Stand with Charlie Hebdo-And You Should Too,” which naively presents the free speech argument. What Charlie Hebdo’s anti-Islamist cartoons represent is hate images and speech, a defamation of a major world religion and culture, and an obvious attack on Muslims. To cloud this reality is intellectual dishonesty in the wake of reactionary politics.

Stoking the flames of racial hatred through dehumanizing others and their beliefs is nothing new; yet, today it is claimed that those who de-humanize certain groups are expressing their free speech or righteousness in their actions. One might ask why KKK pamphlets that demean black Americans, white nationalists’ periodicals that vilify Jews, and past campaigns of dehumanization by national groups, like the US’s racist cartoons of Japanese, are viewed as intolerable and unacceptable, yet the demonization of Muslims and Arabs is granted a pass.

Islam bashing, Islamophobia, and anti-Arab sentiments are on the rise in Europe, and particularly in France, in large part do to the de-humanizing tactics of people like those associated with Charlie Hebdo. The dehumanization and discriminatory practices of Charlie cartoons provide ammunition for the anti-Muslim intolerance endorsed by rising far right groups in Europe, like the British Freedom Party, National Front, English Defense League, Alternative for Germany, Freedom Party in Netherlands, and PEGIDA (Patriotic Europeans Against Islamization of the West), to name a few. Problematically, with the aid of people who incite discrimination against Muslims, like the cartoonists and editorial staff at Charlie Hebdo, Islamophobia is now moving from the fringes to the mainstream of European societies.Joe Sacco: On Satire–a response to the Charlie Hebdo attacks

The acclaimed graphic artist and journalist Joe Sacco on the limits of satire–and what it means if Muslims don’t find it funny

US enemies = throat-slitting savages?

Shame on you, Michael Moore: Why his defense of Bill Maher was unacceptable

Last week, Moore said that anger over Bill Maher's Islamophobia was misplaced. Here's why he's very wrong

By Ilirjan ShehuMoore’s siding with Maher came as a surprise. After reading his article, published on his page on Facebook, my opinion is that he has not understood Maher’s argument and what it entails; nor does he seem to have a clear understanding of what I would call the “Muslim consciousness.”

The main confusion comes from his conflation of the 1.6 billion Muslims of the world (one-fifth of humanity) into a single character, and of all Muslim-majority countries into a single, unchangeable, undifferentiated entity. He does the complete opposite, however, when he speaks of Westerners or Western countries. For example, when it comes to beheadings, Moore compares Christians in the US with Muslims in the whole world.

“Sure, I can make a daily list of all the horrible things so-called Christians still do in this country. Rarely, though, do their actions involve decapitation,” says Moore. If he wanted a fair comparison, however, he should have stayed within the U.S., where maybe there aren’t many professed Christians beheading each other—but neither are any such acts being carried out by Muslims. Moore could also make a world comparison for followers of both religions. In that case, he would probably be surprised to find out that there are a lot more Christians than he thinks carrying out beheadings of other Christians and very often also of Muslims.We're demonizing Muslims just like we demonized Indians:Thus, Muslims are widely painted as untrustworthy and backwards citizens. At best, the Muslim is a conservative bastard who keeps his wife locked in his house. At worst, he is a West-hating, throat-slitting, self-detonating savage looking to destroy our freedom and way of life. Even those in the third concentric circle are depicted as trying to attack democracy from within, by simply participating in it through political or civil society organization. Their only difference from more extremist elements being in their chosen method of subterfuge.

(The argument is not a new one. It is similar to the discourse which earlier in U.S. history nominated Native and African Americans as backwards, untrustworthy and impervious to internal reform. It is this very same discourse which declared their incompatibility with “our values” and “our way of life,” calling for reform from the “outside,” while at the same time legitimating the use of violence upon their communities or military intervention in their countries.)

The image of concentric circles with the “jihadis” at the center is not chosen at random. It is meant to show that all the other larger circles share the same epicenter and feed from it. Hence, all are suspect.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Killing "Terrorists" = Killing Indians and Arabs Stereotyped Like Indians.

Killing "terrorists" = killing Indians

Why do we ignore the civilians killed in American wars?

By John TirmanWhy the American silence on our wars’ main victims? Our self-image, based on what cultural historian Richard Slotkin calls “the frontier myth”—in which righteous violence is used to subdue or annihilate the savages of whatever land we’re trying to conquer—plays a large role. For hundreds of years, the frontier myth has been one of America’s sturdiest national narratives.

When the challenges from communism in Korea and Vietnam appeared, we called on these cultural tropes to understand the U.S. mission overseas. The same was true for Iraq and Afghanistan, with the news media and politicians frequently portraying Islamic terrorists as frontier savages. By framing each of these wars as a battle to civilize a lawless culture, we essentially typecast the local populations as the Indians of our North American conquest. As the foreign policy maven Robert D. Kaplan wrote on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page in 2004, “The red Indian metaphor is one with which a liberal policy nomenklatura may be uncomfortable, but Army and Marine field officers have embraced it because it captures perfectly the combat challenge of the early 21st century.”

Politicians tend to speak in broader terms, such as defending Western values, or simply refer to resistance fighters as terrorists, the 21st-century word for savages. Remember the military’s code name for the raid of Osama bin Laden’s compound? It was Geronimo.

The frontier myth is also steeped in racism, which is deeply embedded in American culture’s derogatory depictions of the enemy. Such belittling makes it all the easier to put these foreigners at risk of violence. President George W. Bush, to his credit, disavowed these wars as being against Islam, as has President Obama.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Indians, Terrorists = US Enemies and Bin Laden Codenamed Geronimo.

Debating an "Arab" parade float

Facebook friend Brad posted a 2013 photo of an "Arab" float in a St. Patrick's Day parade. He added a caption:Like the original Irish emigrants to America--old white men pretending to be Arabs.



My immediate response: That's racist.

This led to an interesting debate with Brad and Cx. Brad spoke up early:Oh, that's not even the worst of it. Unfortunately I totally missed getting a photo of the float with two white women dressed as "black" basketball players!And then Cx and I were off to the races, beginning with her comment:And what, people can't satirize anymore without someone getting butt-hurt somewhere? Is theater dead then? Are red-nosed big-shoed clowns a stereotype too? Don't tell the thespians. It's a parade for cripes sake. Oh wait, no offense to the cripes. Have their people call my people. Keep pushing the word racism in the wrong context, it looses its meaning in the right contexts.One, I doubt anyone intended this to be a satire. Two, no, you can't satirize an entire ethnic group. Unless you're a member of that group, maybe, or the group as a whole has abused its power.

So you're saying there are contexts where racism is acceptable? Hell, no.There are contexts--theatrics as storytelling being one--in which apparel items and set design items are inherent in the telling of the story. People of other races can't portray each other without the label of racism? "Group that has abused its power" being a variable, and one of opinion.

Justifying when (and how) portrayal, parody or even sincere attempts to tell a story & use of items in the telling is not the answer to ending racism, if that's your goal. The old adage: *The honor of one is the honor of all.*Defending and justifying racism by making up a label such as "parody" or "satire" isn't the answer either. If the so-called parody isn't obvious, it doesn't exist except in the racists' minds.

Doing nothing except applauding racism like this example certainly won't do anything to end the scourge. My critiques are far more likely to do the trick.

"Art" excuses racism?

Theatrics or storytelling for what purpose? The purpose is the context. If it's to educate or enlighten, maybe. If it's merely to entertain by parading racism, literally, so observers will laugh at the funny nonwhite people...again, no.

So you're in favor of people in minstrel shows performing in blackface? Because that's exactly the same thing.

"People of other races can't portray each other without the label of racism?" Depends on the context and purpose. If it's to portray people falsely, with stereotypes, no. That's almost always unacceptable.

Perhaps you need to (re)read the documented harm of stereotyping as proved in psychology studies. Here you go:

The Harm of Native Stereotyping: Facts and Evidence

As one recent example of the harm, the "savage Indian" stereotype promoted by hipsters in headdresses tells Americans that tribal courts are unfair and violence against Native women is to be expected. Hence the conservatives' unwillingness to pass VAWA.You implying what I'm "saying" rather than focusing on what I'm questioning for the PURPOSE of questioning isn't necessary, Your responses are sufficient rather than implying what I mean. But your page, your pic, have at it.I addressed what you said and what you implied. If you think I got something wrong, feel free to address that point. Until you do, I'd say my interpretation stands.

Yes or no: This performance is equivalent to a minstrel show in blackface. If no, how is it different?The survey you link above being relevant to American Indian stereotypes specifically, can we keep the focus on THIS photo please? I don't know that it's satire, that's one assumption, but being I wasn't there and have never talked to these people to learn their intent, did you or Brad ask them?You're the one who wrote: "Keep pushing the word racism in the wrong context." This isn't the wrong context, it's the right context. You're mistaken if you think otherwise, and I've explained why.

If you have to ask someone if their racism is "satire," the satire has failed. If the satire isn't evident to observers, it doesn't exist except in the satirists' minds.

As I've explained dozens of times, the outcome is what matters, not the intent. People who malign women or gays or minorities don't get a free pass because they didn't "intend" to insult people. If they committed the offense, they're responsible regardless of what they intended.

P.S. Any research specific to Native stereotypes obviously applies to other minorities. More important, it's the tip of the iceberg. There's much more research about the harm to other minorities that I didn't cite.

Don't need no intentThis is a still photo. Without knowing the context or the persons' intent(s), you call it racism. Did you think to ask a person--better yet, take a survey of many (as opinions within a racial group vary)--from this way of dressing if they believe this is racism? Or are you the arbitrary the decider of racism in America, Rob?Intent is irrelevant. You don't understand racism and stereotyping if you think they exist only when people intend them to exist. Try again.

Again, their opinions on what they were doing are irrelevant. What matters is the outcome.

Is this a fair and accurate portrayal of Arabs or Muslims as a whole? If not, it's stereotypical. If they're singling out Arabs or Muslims for this treatment, it's racist.

Still waiting for an answer to my blackface question.

Every American can and should decide what's racist and speak out when something obviously is. If a person doesn't, she's part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Same as if they see a rape happening in Steubenville or on a military base. Those boys didn't mean to hurt anyone, and neither did those soldiers. Shall we give them a pass because of their intent?"Try again" I often see you do this when your point becomes validly challenged and you attempt to make your opinion right over the other person. "The outcome" to whom? See, that assigning of whose effects are important (and decisive) and whose are not--now there's a clue!You haven't "validly challenged" anything. I've raised a dozen legitimate points and I'm not seeing your answer to any of them. What are you waiting for, an invitation? Answer the blackface question, for starters.I say I have validly challenged. Now who gets to be the decider? Opinion leaders? Isn't this fun? :-)Challenging questions with questions such as "the outcome to whom?" is the weakest sort of debate tactic. It's what pathetic people do when they don't have any arguments of their own. "The evidence supports evolution or climate change? Says whom?"

Yes or no: Is this performance equivalent to a minstrel show in blackface?

Yes or no: Is this a fair and accurate portrayal of Arabs or Muslims as a whole?

Yes or no: We should judge military rapes by whether the rapists intended to cause harm?Questions means I don't have an answer--yet. And therefore I reserve judgement and labeling until I know more. I don't see a debate to be won or lost here, Rob, I see an exchange of opinions. In your opinion, these folks dressed as they are in the context of a parade is racism, is that correct?You stated that this is the "wrong context" in which to attack or judge racism. That's not a question, it's a judgment.

Yes, this performance is racist. I wasn't kidding when I wrote that in my first comment.Yes, in my opinion, which at this time in this context I am voicing, calling or labeling this racism--judging simply on this being people of one race portraying another--without you being an "opinion leader" or whatever representative (debatable) of persons of this type of dress or culture is the wrong context, that's correct, you heard me right.Brad chimes in

Finally Brad returned to the debate:I'll happily be the "opinion leader"!

I would concur that you have to consider "intent", however not at the expense of "result". I think the rape example is a poor one, because while intent can serve as a mitigating factor the end result is always unquestionably harm. With racism that's considerably more of a gray area.

I think it's possible for one race to portray another in the context of education, performance art, or historical commentary without necessarily being racist. So I would say that's a point for Cx's argument on the issue. One example would be if a theater company in Norway were putting on a production of Othello, I wouldn't expect them to hunt down a black actor capable of playing the part. So it would probably be forgivable if they put an actor in blackface even though it wouldn't be absolutely necessary.

In this example, however, I think I'd have to side with Rob because the intent clearly doesn't meet the standard of being educational or informative. Nor are these people "satirizing" Arab culture. I think the comparison in this case to the "borrowing" of Native American culture is a good one. These people are pretty clearly lampooning Arab dress for their own purpose. I wouldn't put it on the same level as someone stereotyping, such as portraying an Arab as a crazy terrorist, but I would probably say it's on par with white people dressing in inaccurate Native attire and holding a pow wow. ;-)

Here's some factual background to consider:

Abdallah Shrine: A Brief History

ShrinersCx responded:Oh lookie, it's Brad. Yea well who the heck asked your opinion buddy? Oh it's your pic on Rob's wall haha ok seriously. So we have context here, Brad, this a group of Shriners, an organization whose purpose or effect is fundraising for its support of children's hospitals, is that correct?Stereotypes can be positive (Asians are brains), neutral (blacks like watermelon), or negative. This example is closer to neutral than negative, but it's still stereotypical.

"Arabs are terrorists" or "Indians are savages" is negative. "Arabs ride camels" or "Indians wear feathers" is neutral. But again, all these claims are stereotypical.

And if you persist in making these claims after you've been informed of the facts, I'd say they're racist too.

As for Brad's claim, I thought I said portraying a different ethnic group may be acceptable in certain circumstances. This isn't one of them. As you put it, Brad, it serves no purpose as "education, performance art, or historical commentary."

Therefore, agreeing with Cx means agreeing with me on this limited subset of the debate. On the main point, though, you're right that I'm right. There's no question that this parade float is stereotypical and arguably racist.

With its talk of priests and mosques, the Abdallah Shrine looks like a whole "homage" to (i.e., mockery of) Islam. It brings to mind such faux "Native" groups as the Order of the Red Men and the Y-Indian Guides. These groups appropriated and abused Native culture; this group seems to have done the same for Islamic culture.

Brad reaches a verdictBrad
Ha! Ha! O.k. I think I see what you're getting at Cx. Yes, the result of this situation is that they raise money to help sick children. Are you suggesting that they couldn't achieve the same result without the pageantry or phony "tradition". I think they probably could.

In a parallel example, the Washington Redskins are civic organization which has won football championships and no doubt helped the Washington D.C. community in numerous economic and philanthropic ways. Does that make their use of Native culture and iconography acceptable because there's a positive outcome?

Cx
Brad, I'm still comprehending what this is exactly. At first I thought this was a music performance in costumes, and perhaps a parody. I've since learned from the link you included that these are a group of shriners. That's where we left off. I don't think that simply because shriners as a group are philanthropic affects is this racism or not. I see it more as a theatrical effort. I still don't know if they are a parody or satire or serious from the still photo alone. Donning the clothing common to another area of the world or culture isn't in itself racism either. I look forward to picking up where we left off, Brad.Racism and entertainment aren't two mutually exclusive categories. Something can be both.

For instance, the minstrel shows I mentioned. The performers thought they were just being "entertaining." But observers could see that their so-called entertainment was racist.Brad
My position on this particular affair Cx is that it's racist. I think the two things clouding the issue are that it's a culture that's considerably less familiar to us and that the origins of their misuse are so long removed from the current practice.

On face, I'd say this no different than the hipster "pow wows" The origin of this civic group was in a "secret" society or club of white folks who used the Arabian imagery and mythos for their club strictly because it was old and "cool" and gave their organization the air of being something ancient and mystical.

As if that weren't bad enough, the current members are appropriating the cultural hallmarks of Arab society and wearing them in a mocking or cartoonish way, again much as the pretend Indians do. In that sense, I'd say Rob's example of the minstrel shows isn't parallel however as these people aren't attempting to actually portray Arabs.The rape example is a good one if there's no physical damage. The psychological harm of rape and racism is an apples-to-apples comparison.

In both cases, the act can cause painful mental trauma. Yes, rape is usually worse, but people have committed suicide over racist taunts and bullying, just as they've done over rape. The only "gray area" here is how severe the trauma is, not whether it exists.

And in both cases, you can't be sure of the perpetrator's intent. A rapist could've seriously thought he was "making love" to his victim and you can't prove him wrong. As with racism, we judge rape by the results because the intent is irrelevant. Harm is harm whether the perpetrator intended it or not.

As for the Shriners, I suspect they thought they were portraying actual Arabs. And I doubt minstrel performers were any less aware then than they are now. They were spoofing or caricaturing blacks for "fun," exactly as these Shriners are doing to Arabs.

Therefore, all my examples are good ones. Other than that, I agree with Brad since he agrees with me. ;-)

For more on the subject, see Bloody Jackson, Family Guy, and Archie Bunker, Hipster Racism, and The Magical Power of Intent.

Right-wingers ignore right-wing terrorists

How Republicans react to the right-wing terrorism they've fomented:

Home-Grown, Right-Wing Terrorism: The Hate the GOP Refuses to See

As the Las Vegas shootings show, right-wing extremism is real and on the rise. But for Republicans, better to focus on the Muslims.

By Dean ObeidallahRemember in 2009, right at the start of the Obama era, when then-Secretary of Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano issued a report (PDF) entitled: “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment”? The report was truly prescient. It alerted us to the rise of right-wing extremism, such as from white supremacist groups, and warned that unchecked, it could lead to violence.

How did Republicans respond? They went ballistic attacking the report. John Boehner was especially upset that Napolitano would use the term “terrorist” to “describe American citizens who disagree with the direction Washington Democrats are taking our nation,” adding, “using such broad-based generalizations about the American people is simply outrageous.”

Well, what have we seen since 2010? An explosion in the number of hate groups and a rash of domestic terrorist acts committed by those very right-wing groups Napolitano warned us about. Per the Southern Poverty Law Center, since 2010, there have been 32 instances of terrorism by far-right groups—that equals eight attacks per year.And:So how have Republicans responded to the rise of attacks by right-wing groups? By ignoring it and keeping their focus on foreign terrorists and Muslim-Americans. Perhaps the Republican members of Congress would find it instructive to reread the oath they took upon being sworn into office that provides in part: “I do solemnly swear to defend the United States…against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

I’m sure they are fully aware of these words. The actual reason Republicans won’t investigate right-wing extremists is that it would not only anger their base, it would actually indict some parts of it. Let’s be honest: In a time when establishment Republicans are concerned about getting challenged in primaries by more conservative Tea Party types, calling for hearings to investigate right-wing organizations could be political suicide.How Fox News Covers Right-Wing Cop Killers

When Political Violence Doesn't Warrant Collective Blame

By Eric BoehlertThe chilling details of Sunday's Las Vegas ambush produced public shock and intense media coverage. One major news outlet seemed to lag behind, though: Fox News.

Primetime hosts Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity both ignored the shocking cop-killer story last night, while Megyn Kelly devoted four sentences to it. (By contrast, the story covered extensively during CNN and MSNBC's primetime.) Fox talkers on Monday were still far more interested in debating the prisoner swap of Bowe Bergdahl than they were examining the political ambush in Las Vegas.

For Fox News, the Las Vegas killing spree represents a toxic mix of guns, far-right insurrectionism, tea party implications, and the Cliven Bundy ranch standoff. For Fox News, the story about right-wing gun violence and the seeds of a bloody political revolution present all kinds of problems for the channel and its outspoken hosts, some of whom have previously championed limitless gun rights, insurrectionism, the Tea Party, and racist rancher Bundy.

In the 36 hours after the shooting, Fox News tread lightly around the Las Vegas story, producing regular news updates about the crime spree. But Fox provided almost no commentary, no context, and certainly no collective blame for the executions.

And that's how Fox News deals with right-wing domestic terrorism in America, when it even bothers to acknowledge the killings and the crimes. (The channel barely covered Georgia's courthouse siege last week.) At Fox, the deadly and disturbing events are treated as isolated incidents that are mostly void of politics. And more importantly, on Fox the perpetrators are always portrayed as lone gunmen (and women) who do not represent any cultural or political movement.

But when Fox covers breaking U.S. news events involving terror acts by Arabs or Muslims? Recall that in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing last year it was a Fox talker who suggested American mosques be bugged and other Constitutional rights for Muslims be eliminated. And it was on Fox that viewers were told, "not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims." It's where there was a concerted effort to blame the larger Muslim community for the isolated event.

The obvious double standard is not only unfair but it's misguided, as homegrown right-wing terrorists in America have proven to be a deadlier threat over the last decade. As CNN's Peter Bergen reported earlier this year, since 9/11, "extremists affiliated with a variety of far-right wing ideologies, including white supremacists, anti-abortion extremists and anti-government militants, have killed more people in the United States than have extremists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology."

Fox News Has Ceased Coverage of Las Vegas Tea Party Cop Killers

By Mark NCFox has replaced the Sunday massacre with older stories about the Bergdahl prisoner swap, the Veterans Administration, and Hillary Clinton’s book release and presidential aspirations. The producers and editors at Fox News have never been shy about reporting acts of alleged terrorism, even before any evidence has emerged. But for this story they have refused to even refer to the crime as terrorism. There are some obvious reasons why Fox would skew their reporting and ultimately remove this story from their news coverage. And all of them represent biases that are a long-standing part of what can be called the Fox News Creed.

First of all, the perpetrators are not who Fox’s racist producers typically profile as terrorists. Rather than being brown-skinned, Muslim, foreigners, the Millers are white Christians from Indiana. So not only would it run counter to Fox’s philosophy to implicate the Millers in terrorism, it would offend their 90% white, right-wing audience.

Secondly, the issue raises concerns about access to dangerous firearms. The NRA constituency at Fox is loathe to focus on such events that make the public uncomfortable with the wild west society that is favored by the gun fetishists and right-wingers who program and watch the network. Fox avoids or downplays most stories about gun violence, but jumps on any report that they can frame as an Obama attempt to repeal the Second Amendment.

Thirdly, Fox is well known for promoting some of the very same political ideologies as the Millers. They have featured guests who advocate secession from the United States, as well as armed resistance to federal law and authorities. An example of that is the recent Cliven Bundy affair where Jerad Miller just happened to show up threatening to use “the language of violence” against representatives of the Bureau of Land Management. Fox has also hyped Republican leaders, like Texas governor Rick Perry, who have made public statements that come just short of declaring secession.

Finally, the Millers’ association with Tea Party groups is something that Fox will work vigorously to excise from the public discourse. The Millers were supporters of the biggest Koch brothers-bankrolled Tea Party organizations (Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks), and openly espoused their anti-government views. It was only a matter of time before people who came to rallies with signs that said “We Came Unarmed--THIS TIME,” would keep their promise of violence. Of course, Fox News also supports the same groups and views, and has been instrumental in creating and promoting the Tea Party. In fact, there would be no Tea Party without Fox News. Consequently, Fox is not going to risk alienating such a critical part of their audience.CNN is almost as bad as Fox News. It's part of the conservative mainstream media that doesn't want to anger the Republican Tea Party by calling right-wing terrorists what they are.

Why Is Cable Television So Afraid to Admit That Many of America's Terror Attacks Are Right-Wing?

CNN is afraid to call a major social threat by its real name.

By CJ WerlemanFielder told NBC News she had heard Jared Miller make anti-government statements in the past—including a desire to overthrow the government and President Obama and kill police officers—but was not alarmed by them.

It takes no degree of sophisticated insightfulness to conclude the obvious: that the Millers are right-wing extremists, identifying with Tea Party anti-government views. It’s also reported that the Millers were among those in attendance at the Cliven Bundy ranch, when right-wing extremists, egged on by Fox News, pointed assault rifles at U.S. federal agents.

But don’t expect CNN to include the prefix “right-wing” to the use of the word extremism or terrorism, for their, and the mainstream media’s, fear of the right-wing hysteria machine is ever present and always palpable. In fact, CNN refused to identify the Tea Party flag. Dan Simon of CNN went so far as to avoid the far right’s wrath that he said the killers “left behind some type of flag with some kind of insignia.” The cable network’s 24/7 ticker feed reads, “Killers had extremist views.”

No, CNN, the killers had RIGHT-WING extremist views. That is established and clearly evident. Wolf Blitzer asked a guest, “What kind of anti-government groups are associated with this type of extremism?” Again, that much is obvious. The right-wing of today’s Republican Party is in itself an anti-government group, and has been ever since Goldwater Republicans became the loudest voice in the GOP’s shrinking tent, culminating with Reagan’s, “Government is not part of the solution. Government is the problem.”Comment:  For more on conservatives and terrorism, see Right-Wing Terrorism Worse Than Jihadism and Report Documents Right-Wing Terrorism.

Right-wing terrorism worse than jihadism

Americans Are More Likely to Be Killed by Right-Wing Terrorists Than Muslims—But the Media's Afraid to Say It

We must confront the threat of far right extremism.

By CJ WerlemanWhen Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) labeled cattle rancher and right-wing extremist Cliven Bundy a “domestic terrorist,” the far Right went into an apoplectic state. But the Senate majority leader may have unwittingly stumbled upon an interesting and sobering fact: that when it comes to domestic terrorism, you are far more likely to be murdered by a far Right-wing American than a Muslim American, but the term “terrorist” remains reserved exclusively for acts of political violence carried out by Muslims.

If terrorism is defined as violence against innocent civilians designed to advance a political cause, then all racist murders that occur in the U.S. are also acts of terrorism, because the perpetrators commit the violent act to send a political message to minority communities (i.e. intimidate them into a subordinate status.)

Arun Kundani, adjunct professor at New York University and author of The Muslims are Coming: Islamophobia, Extremism, and the War on Terror, writes: “The definition of terrorism is never applied consistently, because to do so would mean the condemnatory power of the term would have to be applied to our violence as much as theirs, thereby defeating the word’s usefulness.”

Violence carried out by far Right groups or individuals, which have racism as a central component of their ideology, is of similar magnitude to that of Jihadist violence. In the years 1990 to 2010, there were 145 acts of political violence committed by the American far Right, resulting in 348 deaths. By comparison, 20 Americans were killed over the same period in acts of political violence carried out by Muslim-American civilians.

“Both categories of violence represent threats to democratic values from fellow citizens. Whereas the former uses violence to foment a change in the ethnic makeup of Western countries or to defend racial supremacy, the latter uses violence to try to intimidate Western governments into changing foreign policies. Ultimately, to be more concerned about one domestic threat of violence rather than the other implies governments and mainstream journalists consider foreign policies more sacrosanct than the security of minority citizens,” writes Kundani.Comment:  When white male conservatives don't get their way, they take their guns and man the barricades. (See Cliven Bundy and his supporters as one example.) It's only a step or two from there to shooting at federal agents and blowing up federal buildings. The same pro-white, anti-government sentiments motivate mainstream conservatives and their more extremist brethren.

For more on Cliven Bundy the domestic terrorist, see What Bundy and Sterling Tell Us and Bundy the Conservative Racist.

For more on right-wing terrorism, see Report Documents Right-Wing Terrorism and The Logical Conclusion of Extremism.