Question for the Islamophobes...

Other than the amount of body showing: what is the difference between these Amish women and Muslim women wearing their religious dress?

And the Mormons don't drink--gotta problem with that?

BTW, who the eff used the tag "Pennsylvania Dutch"?  It's Pennsylvania German!

Hypocrisy?

www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-29388150

FYI

Got it?

Quote of the Day

"Both house and ground were vested and in trustees, expressly for the use of any preacher of any religious persuasion who might desire to say something to the people at Philadelphia; the design in building not being to accommodate any particular sect, but the inhabitants in general; so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service."
The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin
http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/autobiography/page49.htm

Yeah, it might be like beating a dead horse, or shouting "Benghazi", BUT...

It is an accurate assessment, no matter how much the right wing want to deny it:

And they only show their dishonesty when they do try to deny it.

Quote of the day (or "Hey, Holly, betcha didn't know you had so much in common with a Mooselim")

I became Republican because I felt that my Islamic values – pro-life, pro-traditional family, pro-business, pro-trade – aligned best with the Republican party platform. I identified as a Democrat for several years when I was younger, but found it hard to defend liberal values as they were so often in conflict with my deeply-held beliefs.--Saba Ahmed

Of course, we know the right wing people who denied that there was more similarities than differences in this picture will have "their heads explode" at the above quote:

Sorry, you can hem and haw all you want about Holly somehow being different, but the only difference is that she isn't modestly dressed (1 Timothy 2:9–10).

Holly, the only thing about you which makes my head explode is that you are so ignorant and proud of that fact.

You have so much in common with the people you claim to hate.

Although, One could claim that there has been a huge misunderstanding here. One of these is a picture depicts a good woman and the other, by contrast, must be a picture of a bad woman, right?

Surely, you see that one of these pictures shows a patriotic and faithful citizen, a woman whom many see as representing goodness, possessing characteristics which a sympathetic audience would interpret as truly wholesome. She’s simply holding the common and natural token of her faith in one hand. This is a book, I don’t need to tell anyone here, that we all know of and which many of us have read. And her faith, incidentally, is something which she sees as foundational to the existence of her country and to the very idea of morality; her other hand is locked to the hand grip of the symbol and substance (as she and many like her see it) of freedom and power. I’m sure she regards this as an unquestionable right! With a gun, she seems to say with her smile, “You may think I’m a soft woman, but go ahead and mess with me”. Behind her, the banner of not just her nation or people, but of her own identity.

Of course, the other picture is of an American. I can understand why her followers would be upset.

More on modest dress and Christianity.

Change it to Muslim and see what their reaction is...

Funny, but if you changed the word "Christian" to "Muslim" in some right wing screeds, that you would see people going apoplectic.  Strange, but they just don't quite get what that means.

Anywaly, I'd prefer to live in Europe where this shit isn't tolerated than in someplace that fancies itself as Iran or Afghanistan or some other Islamic terror land only rebranded "Christian".

Sorry, but the only difference is that the one on the left isn't as modestly dressed.

We’re curious what, if any, difference there is between these two pictures? Both women worship the same god. Both of them are holding a book that heavily mentions Jesus, and both are unnecessarily heavily armed–and then there’s the intolerance demonstrated by extremists of either of these very similar religions.

Thank you, Holly, for proving me correct:

Sinclair Lewis on Fascism updated, or my Ambrose Bierce moment

This is a reference to Ambrose Bierce’s entry on Patriotism in the Devil’s Dictionary where he says:

In Dr. Johnson’s famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.

Likewise, Sinclair Lewis’s rather famous quote on fascism that:

“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior writer I beg to submit that when fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag, carrying a cross and a gun, while claiming it is all being done in the name of the Constitution.

Nebraska Teen Gets a Heavy Sentence for Accidental Shooting

Sabri S. Ibrahim

The Journal Star

A 19-year-old refugee will spend at least the next three years in prison for accidentally shooting a 17-year-old in the back, paralyzing her.

Lancaster County District Court Judge Jodi Nelson gave Sabri S. Ibrahim a 6- to 10-year sentence Thursday for shooting Treneyce R. Thompson, now 18, on June 19.

With good time, he’ll finish his sentence in three years.

Ibrahim was trying to buy the gun from 20-year-old Deavonni Galloway and was checking it out in the back seat of Galloway’s car when the gun went off.

The bullet blasted through the front passenger seat and tore into Thompson’s back.

“I’m sorry. My heart cries out to Treneyce,” Ibrahim told Nelson in court on Thursday. “It was an accident.”

Defense attorney Carlos Monzon asked Nelson to give Ibrahim a 1 1/2- to 3- year sentence to run with time he was already doing on a drug charge.

“Mr. Ibrahim never had the intent to cause harm to anybody,” Monzon said. “He probably didn’t even mean to shoot that gun.

“This is a case about an accident.”

Yes and no, Judge Nelson countered. True, Ibrahim probably didn’t mean to shoot a gun and hurt Thompson. But he did try to buy a gun illegally while out on bond from the drug charges, and undoubtedly, she said, he was going to do something “sinister” with it.

Wow, that sounds like the judge punished the guy for things he hasn't done yet, possible future crimes.

Is that right? Can he do that?

You have a problem if Barack Obama is a Muslim.

Not a question, but a statement since the Constitution that some people claim to respect and all that says (Article VI):

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Repeat that last part just to make it clear to you who don't get that the US is a SECULAR Society (like it or not):

no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

That means it doesn't matter what religion Barack Obama (or Mitt Romney or anybody else for that matter) happens to be.

You might have missed that bit since that paragraph comes right after:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

And if you don't think the founders would support this: guess again:

"Both House and Ground were vested in Trustees, expressly for the Use of any Preacher of any religious Persuasion who might desire to say something to the People of Philadelphia, the Design [purpose] in building not being to accommodate any particular Sect, but the Inhabitants in general, so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a Missionary to preach Mahometanism [Islam] to us, he would find a Pulpit at his Service. "

As I said, you have a problem because the Constitution isn't on your side if you are trying to make someone's religion an issue in US politics.  In fact, religion would not intrude in US politics given the US's being a secular state--I only wish more people would be disgusted by this trend.

But, maybe some of you aren't  the strong supporters of the Constitution that you claim to be.

Or, maybe you just need to brush up on what exactly it is that you are supposed to be defending.

The US is a secular nation: understand that fact.

A Win for Freedom! Hooray!

A win for religious freedom and a blow striking down the efforts of the Un-American Islamophobes who would prefer to force the nation to be a Christian theocracy.  The religious right is our own version of the Taliban in significant respects, including those like Gingrich who do not recognize us as a secular society made up of many religions and agnosticism and atheism. 

The people who pursue and support legislation like this would in reality desecrate our freedom far more seriously than measures like gun regulation.  The same is true of those who would limit voting privileges by requiring ID where there is no significant instance of voter fraud, particularly of the kind where someone votes twice, or misrepresents who they are to do so.  The same Un-American assault on freedom applies to those who promulgate the Arizona-pioneered 'papers please' legislation.

Despite offending the right wing extremists among us, the courts upheld our freedom. It is the efforts by the right wingers that are most seriously eroding our freedom in this country, to try to appease their rampant paranoia.  I look forward to seeing more of these decisions.

Maybe some of the gun nuts should consider a conversion, joining instead of fighting Sharia law.  Then they could claim religious privilege under Sharia law to justify their firearm fetishes!

Federal court deals blow to anti-Shariah efforts

By Kari Huus, msnbc.com.

In a decision that Muslim legal advocates celebrated as a major win, a federal appeals court on Tuesday agreed with a lower court that blocked an Oklahoma law that would have barred state courts from considering or using Shariah law — the Islamic code of conduct.
The law would likely dampen similar legislation proposed in at least 20 U.S. states over the last couple of years, said Noah Feldman, professor of law at Harvard University.
The decision “should have a good, positive, desirable chilling effect,” said Feldman. “It should tell people in those jurisdictions that (similar laws) almost all will be judged unconstitutional.”
In the November 2010 election, Oklahomans voted overwhelmingly for referendum SQ 755 — described by its author, Rep. Rex Duncan, as “a preemptive strike against Sharia Law coming to Oklahoma.”
The amendment stated that: “The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law."
Muslim challenged law
A lawsuit filed two days after the election by Oklahoma resident Muneer Awad, a Muslim, charged that the law violated his First Amendment rights. In addition to stigmatizing him and other Muslims, Awad argued, the amendment would invalidate his last will and testament, which made reference to Islamic writings.
A federal judge in Oklahoma agreed that the amendment was most likely unconstitutional and granted a permanent injunction preventing its implementation until a final determination could be made.
On Tuesday, a judge for the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, Colo., agreed with the lower court and upheld the injunction — rejecting an appeal by the state of Oklahoma.
“Because the amendment discriminates among religions, it is 'suspect,'" the higher court ruled, "and 'we apply strict scrutiny in adjudging its constitutionality.’”
The case returns to Oklahoma for a final determination, but the circuit court decision was met with enthusiasm by Muslim civil rights advocates.
“The decision today is an extremely strong signal that the Oklahoma anti-Muslim amendment will be stricken,” said Gadeir Abbas, staff attorney for the Council on American Islamic Relations, who wrote the lawsuit.
“It’s not as if the 10th circuit is a bastion of left-wing activism,” he said. “This is coming from a very conservative court … It is unequivocal that there are really serious, very clear violations of the constitution that this amendment poses.”
Problem doesn't exist, lawyer saysAlthough Islam’s detractors suggest that “creeping sharia,” left unchecked, will undermine U.S. freedoms, Feldman says that these laws play on fears of a problem that does not exist.
“The Constitution of the United States, and the constitution of every state -- that is 51 constitutions -- already make it illegal to implement Islamic law,” said Feldman. “Just as Jewish law can’t be the law of the United States, and canon law can’t be the law of the United States, shariah law can’t be the law of the United States.”
“It’s like a law that says we absolutely ban alligators on the South Pole,” he said.
On one hand, the court can consider the Islamic passage referred to by plaintiff Awad in his last will and testament, as a means of ascertaining his wishes.
On the other hand, if his wishes somehow run afoul of U.S. laws — regardless of his personal wishes — then the court will rule them a violation of law.
The final disposition of the case remains uncertain, but this decision strongly suggests the Oklahoma law ultimately will be defeated.
Most lawyers will see the 10th Circuit Court ruling as a “dog bites man story, not the other way around” Feldman said, showing that “the constitution works the way it is supposed to.”

Islamophobia Fire Bombing

This is what ignorance, intolerance, bigotry ginned up by fear produces.

Conservatives have far more people who personify these fears and other feelings; it is far more from the conservative side of ideology that we have rampant Islamophobia, and the need and desire to arm themselves as a result. Thees are the people who are willing not only to arm themselves, but to take action against their fellow citizens, the other people who live in this nation and society, and against the government that they fear.  Fear drives them.  Hatred of those perceived to be other or different drives them.  Their presumption of rightness and their false perception of being superior, of being more exceptional, more deserving, more righteous than other people drives them to act in the most heinous possible ways - lie this.

Fear and hatred bring out the worst in people, when they act like this; never the best. It turns these self-righteous and self-congratulatory ignorant asses into themselves becoming the very thing they profess to hate. 

They become the terrorists they claim to hate.

It is not fact based, it is not rational, it is not objective thinking or action.  It is emotional, it is ill-informed, misinformed, disinformed thinking that leads to actions like this.  The guilt, the blame, the responsibility for fomenting these actions lies with sources like Rush Limbaugh, Faux Nuissance, Glenn Beck, Pam Geller, Jihad Watch, and the many other highly partisan sources that get their power by promoting their agenda of hatred and paranoia.

This is the price, a society where people are less free, less safe, less able in practice (as contrasted with theory) to pursue their freedom of religion.

From MSNBC.com and the AP:

Cops investigate firebomb attacks on NYC Muslims

Islamic center, two homes and a deli targeted; 60 firefighters battle blaze at house 

msnbc.com staff and news service reports

updated 1/2/2012 2:30:32 AM ET

NEW YORK — Authorities were investigating after reports that Molotov cocktails were thrown at an Islamic center and several other properties in New York City late Sunday.

The Fire Department of New York said a blaze outside the Imam Al-Khoei Foundation building in Queens was brought under control quickly after a call came in at about 9 p.m. Sunday.
No injuries were reported. There was minor damage to a door.
Fire marshals and police were investigating the purported attack.
The building on the Van Wyck Expressway in the Jamaica section houses a school and religious spaces.
Police also said they were investigating whether there were possible links to fires at a deli about four miles away and two nearby homes.
Starbucks bottles The New York Times reported that police believed Muslims were being targeted in each of the four attacks.
The paper said that in three of the attacks, the Molotov cocktails used were made with Starbucks bottles.
The Times said the Islamic center was one of the most prominent Shiite mosques in New York.
The paper said an attack on a home on 107th Avenue caused the most damage. The house caught fire and 60 firefighters worked for about 40 minutes to deal with the blaze.
The other attack on a house caused little damage, the Times said. Two bottles were thrown from a vehicle at the home, on 170th Street, a Fire Department spokesman said the person who called 911 reported.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The Guardian in the UK: Anders Breivik, Terrorist

I would argue that the actions by Anders Breivik, whether he was crazy or not, meet the definition of terrorism, because those actions were deliberate uses of violence intended for political change to result from them.

This differs from the many other reasons used to justify mass shootings.  In Seal Beach, California for instance, where there was a smaller mass shooting several months later, which appear to be motivated by anger over a domestic matter, a child custody dispute in a divorce case.  The latter shooting was very personal, and not in any way political, not in any way intended to change public opinion about politics.

The dictionary definition of the word terrorism makes the distinction clear (this definition is from dictionary.com):

ter·ror·ism

   [ter-uh-riz-uhm]  

noun

1.

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Sanity or lack of sanity has no apparent role in that definition; one can be a crazy terrorist or a sane terrorist; it is the focus of why one commits violence that is the defining characteristic.  I can certainly understand why those on the political right would be very uncomfortable at the role their political rhetoric has played in the influencing of a crazy person.  That we would now be seeing a hurried song and dance of 'get off my side'  is not surprising. 

But the more significant question is --- why are those views only crazy when Breivik holds them, but the exact same identical political position is NOT crazy when so many of those on the right hold them, notably the rigorously Islamophobic positions expressed by our 2012 GOP presidential candidates? 

I would concede that in believing his actions would produce the results he desired, Breivik was more than a little delusional.  But we cannot simply assert that his position of Islamophobia was delusional without tarring a wide swath of the right with that same label of insanity.  It's not insane; it is xenophobic, it is religious and ethnic hatred, but it is not, of itself, mental illness.

From here:

Anders Breivik's hatred does not come from a delusional mind

The Norwegian terrorist's political madness, which he shares with other extremists, has been reduced to personal madness

Anders Breivik, left, who killed 77 people in Norway in July has been recently declared insane. Photograph: Jon-Are Berg-Jacobsen/AFP/Getty Images
As the terrorist of Oslo is declared insane, the Norwegian faith in our judicial system is challenged. On Tuesday, psychiatrists came to the conclusion that Anders Breivik was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia when he killed 77 people in Norway this July. The news has come as a shock to many, yet the diagnosis is in many ways a logical consequence of various developments over the last month. What originally seemed to be an obvious case of political terrorism has increasingly been treated as a case of individual madness. After the local elections in September, media coverage and public debate followed two diverging trails. One of these focused criticism not on Breivik or any of his political compatriots on the Islamophobic right, but on local and national police, and the Norwegian political authorities. This approach came to a preliminary conclusion when the minister of justice more or less voluntarily left his position and was applauded by the opposition for "taking responsibility" – as if he, or the government, were primarily to blame for the terror, not the terrorist himself. The second approach, led by the media, has shifted attention from Breivik's political ideas and deeds to his personal psyche. Readers of Norwegian newspapers have delved into his childhood, relation to family, lack of a sexual life and social disorders. Two days before the report from the psychiatric commission was released, Norway's largest newspaper published a full front page story with a picture of a child's bicycle, speculating that Breivik may have been sexually abused in his childhood. The criminal case was turned into psychology even before the psychiatric report was released. And as a consequence, our perspective moved from Utøya, from the acts of terror and the ideas behind them, to Breivik's personal history. His political madness, a political paranoia he shares with extremist bloggers, organisations and politicians all over Europe, has been reduced to clinical madness, now with the medical title "schizophrenic paranoia". It has been claimed that this diagnosis could be used to brand all his fellow extremists insane as well, but I think that this is unlikely. On the contrary, many internet extremists will continue to claim that the madness is exactly what distinguishes them from Breivik. He might share some of their views, but they don't share his diagnosis. As one of the 157 lawyers representing the victims said: "Perhaps it is easier to live knowing that this was just the deed of a sick person." After the second world war, Norwegian society showed a similar response to the Nazi sympathies of Nobel laureate Knut Hamsun. He was declared insane to avoid confronting how deep into society the xenophobic ideology went. I fear that Breivik's diagnosis will serve the same purpose, moving the focus away from the ideas he has spearheaded. These are ideas of which some are echoed in many parts of Norwegian society, and not just on the margins. At the moment, the conclusion of the psychiatric experts has little support among Norwegians. Mainly because it might take away the Norwegian society's need for revenge. The idea that Breivik might not be punished by jail, but "only" detention in a closed hospital ward challenges our idea of justice. His deliberate planning and tedious carrying out of the atrocities challenges our idea of severe mental illness. And perhaps worst of all, the possibility that he might – unlikely as it is – one day be let out on the streets again is an offence to the families and friends of the victims and the survivors, and thus to all of us. I believe that this need for revenge is justified. The murders in Oslo and at Utøya has an evil and political character not seen in Norway since the war, and must be treated as such – as something extraordinary. But in the end I don't think the question of jail, detention or forced psychiatric care will create lasting political disturbance or lack of faith in Norway's judicial system. There seems to be an agreement across political boundaries that the court must rule by its laws, and that this preliminary conclusion will be thoroughly checked. We will accept the verdict as long as it is for life. But if he is ever set free, even just for a short leave, there will be a riot. The diagnosis will be accepted as long as he is locked up for life. The long-term political consequences of the psychiatric report might be more severe. This diagnosis may be the one thing that puts the terror of Oslo in the category of school massacres and Charles Manson, instead of placing it where it belongs – as the last in a long series of violent acts perpetrated by the extreme political right. As most Norwegians, I do not have the medical skills to support or overrule the verdict of a psychiatric commission. Either way, the paranoia and the crimes of Anders Breivik are his own, but his hatred does not come from a delusional mind. We recognise it as the white man's hatred that we have known for a century. His acts of terror mirror the views and expressions of a multitude of rightwing extremists. He is not alone in his madness.

Breaking Breivik News

This news headline certainly goes to the ongoing topic here of preventing the criminally insane, the dangerously crazy, shooters from getting guns.   I can't resist pointing out that part his inspiration for the terrible crime he committed was the Islamophobia promoted by the same Pamela Geller who circulated the misinformation about stealth Islamicization of America through secretly Halal Butterball turkeys 'sacrificed to Allah' nonsense, which I wrote about here and here.

We should realize that the same themes that prompted the extreme, the insane conduct by Breivik is what motivates the candidates and the base on the right to formulate and hold the political positions based on Islamophobia.  This is frequently factually inaccurate hysteria relating to fear of Sharia law (which is NOT a threat, there is NO danger of it becoming one), fear of the insane concept o9f stealth Islamicization, fear of other countries which are largely Muslim, like not ony Iran, but also Egypt, and even fear of our fellow Americans, like the right wing political evangelicals who would not allow Muslim Americans to serve in our military. They are alike in kind to Breivik, differing only in degree.  I would point out that the extremism of Breivik started out less extreme; it was fed and nurtured by the right.

I see parallels in the emotion based rather than fact based Islamophobia with the unreasoning fear of criminals descending at any moment on those who have a desperate need to carry their firearms wherever they go.  It is not objective, it is not reality based, it is a disproportionate fear to any real risks.

From MSNBC.com:

Norwegian mass killer Anders Breivik is criminally insane, evaluation finds

Confessed killer could spend life in psychiatric institution rather than jail if court upholds assessment 

msnbc.com news services

updated 11/29/2011 7:56:27 AM ET

OSLO, Norway — Court-appointed psychiatrists concluded Tuesday that Norwegian mass killer Anders Behring Breivik is criminally insane and could be committed to a psychiatric institution indefinitely rather than face a jail term. Breivik has confessed to killing 77 people in a bombing in central Oslo and in a shooting spree at a Labour Party summer camp on an island in July, in the worst attacks committed in Norway since the end of World War Two.
The finding by the two forensic psychiatrists will help determine whether Breivik is sentenced to prison or psychiatric care. Prosecutor Svein Holden says the report shows Breivik was "psychotic" during the attack.
If that assessment is upheld by the court then Breivik cannot be sentenced to prison for the attacks.
Story: Norway mass killer Breivik admits July massacre Breivik, 32, denies criminal guilt, saying he's a commander of a Norwegian resistance movement opposed to multiculturalism.
Investigators have found no sign of such a movement and say Breivik most likely plotted and carried out the attacks on his own.
36 hours with Breivik The psychiatrists spent a total of 36 hours talking to Breivik and also watched recordings of police interrogations with him, said Torgeir Husby, one of the psychiatrists who evaluated him. He added that Breivik was cooperative.
The 243-page report will be reviewed by a panel from the Norwegian Board of Forensic Medicine, which could ask for additional information, Husby said.
The head of that panel told AP in July that it was unlikely that Breivik would be declared legally insane because the attacks were so carefully planned and executed.
In Norway, an insanity defense requires that a defendant be in a state of psychosis while committing the crime with which he or she is charged. That means the defendant has lost contact with reality to the point that he's no longer in control of his own actions.
If tried and convicted of terrorism, Breivik will face up to 21 years in prison or an alternative custody arrangement that could keep him behind bars indefinitely.
Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Happy Thanksgiving to Mikeb302000 Readers; Right Wing Extremists, Wrong Again! This time about Turkey!

Even when we give you a rough time, we are thankful for all of you who read or comment here.  I'm  grateful to MikeB for inviting me to join his blog earlier this year, and for the writing of my co-bloggers.  It was a pleasure to be asked, and it is a special pleasure to have Laci and Democommie join after me. (Wow, MikeB, 2011 has been  a BIG expansion year for you!)

So here is a turkey topic post, to go along with the bird on your respective dinner tables --- and all those other side dishes. 

Wishing you all a safe and happy Holiday with those you love (but not more of them than you can stand, LOL).

I find Pamela Geller and the Islamaphobes on the right like her to be ignorant and inaccurate.  So I was unimpressed when I heard that Geller was waging an anti-Islam campaign against Butterball Turkeys.  Minnesota is an Ag state; it was a Minnesota Turkey that President Obama pardoned this year.  We take our turkeys seriously in these parts, good 'Merikan turkeys.  Between the wild geese, and the wild turkeys, pheasants, ducks, and other wild fowl around where I live, in addition to the domestic variety, we are practically hip deep in edible birds of all varieties.

Promoting an hysterical fear and hatred for Islam is a significant effort by the right, including covert funding by the big money on the right to keep people good and scared.  It makes Islam and terrorism a good wedge issue for the right manipulators, to frighten their base into voting the way they want them to vote.

Here is one of the initial sources for the story about Geller's ridiculous claims, one that clearly, she didnt do the minimum research to verify before making a big noise.  Given her penchant for doing that, there has to be an element of self-promotion in this, a desire to gain attention for herself, not just a concern for the topic. ( I had a rip-roaring good laugh at any publication that gives Geller credence being called 'The American Thinker', because the people who believe this crap are anything BUT thinkers; they're ignorant, bigoted idiots.):

From the New York Magazine (Geller is based in NY):

Halal Turkeys Are Tainting Thanksgiving, Says Pamela Geller

The Internet's most visible hater of Islam, Pamela Geller, is warning all Americans this Thanksgiving about a dastardly new force that's threatening the freedom of our holiday dinner tables: Butterball turkeys. According to Geller, in a column from The American Thinker, the turkey brand is forcing sharia law onto all of us by offering whole turkeys that are "certified halal." Geller is aghast: "In a little-known strike against freedom, yet again, we are being forced into consuming meat slaughtered by means of a torturous method: Islamic slaughter." Yet again!

Geller has the background, in her typically measured tone:

Halal slaughter involves cutting the trachea, the esophagus, and the jugular vein, and letting the blood drain out while saying "Bismillah allahu akbar" — in the name of Allah the greatest. Many people refuse to eat it on religious grounds. Many Christians, Hindus or Sikhs and Jews find it offensive to eat meat slaughtered according to Islamic ritual (although observant Jews are less likely to be exposed to such meat, because they eat kosher).

While Geller attempts to rally the PETA folks to her side by calling the practice crueler than normal, another more neutral take contends that halal slaughter "differs from turkeys which are slaughtered in traditional turkey farms or plants in the United States, where turkeys are kept in cramped conditions and slaughtered in a sort of assembly line by machinery which many find to be inhumane."

Geller will not be convinced otherwise: "It's Islamic supremacism on the march, yet again," she promises. (Yet again!!) "So this Thanksgiving, fight for your freedom." Her "Boycott Butterball Turkey" group on Facebook currently boasts 1,078 "likes," and comments like, "Liberal Fascists are indoctrinated to hate whites, Jews, America, Americans, Free Markets, Christians, history, economics, numbers, and facts." Liberal fascists, however, love Butterball.

Then we have this Youtube bit of Geller and her right wing interviewer spewing this crap over the airwaves; what they are saying is not, in point of fact, correct in any measure:

In counterpoint to the inaccuracies, we have this to enlighten our readers from the dark dysinformation and propaganda on the right.  Screeds of inaccuracy like those typical of Geller and others provokes me to wonder why it is that Geller, and those who run with her crap, like Andrew Breitbart, hate America.  Or in this case, they certainly hate an American Corporation at least, one that employs a LOT of people and does a lot of business here in the U.S., and world wide.

From the Butterball Corporation website, here is the ACCURATE description of their business:

Corporate Information

As the most recognized name in turkey, the Butterball brand represents more than 50 years of cherished memories with consumers globally. Our retail, deli, and foodservice products are distributed throughout the United States and in more than 20 countries worldwide. The tradition of providing top-quality, great-tasting products that make meals something to celebrate every day has made our brand an American favorite.

Headquartered in Garner, NC, Butterball is the largest producer of turkey products in the United States. The company’s three-pronged approach to focuses on self-governance, sustainability, and

social responsibility. The initiative plays a key role in providing internal oversight for integrating values that are important to the company.

and here, from the facts page of Butterball:

Corporate Information - Facts

• Butterball is the largest vertically integrated turkey producer in the United States and accounts for 20 percent of total turkey production in this country.

• The Butterball Turkey Talk Line^® opened in 1981 and handled more than 10,000 consumer calls that year. Today, the line receives more than 100,000 callers during the Thanksgiving season.

• Butterball employs 5,500 associates in its six plant locations and corporate offices.

• At 675,000 square feet, the Butterball plant in Mt. Olive, NC, is the world’s largest turkey plant.

and Kudos to the Rachel Maddow show, for fact checking Ms. Geller: 

There was a good price for the holidays on Butterball turkeys at our local grocery stores; I may just have to rush out to buy a couple of extras, to keep in the freezer, for other holiday entertaining - and to be a good American, by buying American, in pushback against the bigotry and hatred and just plain bloody-minded chronic inaccuracy of people like Ms. Geller. 

I'm thankful that I get so many opportunities to correct the misinformation of conservatives, who would otherwise apparently believe this nonsense, unquestioningly and without critical thinking or factchecking, from the brief glance at the search engine results. ( I think my favorites were the titles indicating that Butterball Turkeys were 'sacrficed to Idols!!!!!!! Oh NOOoooooooooooh!')
But for now, back to the kitchen! 

Happy Hallalidays!

Tough Talk from Ann Barnhardt

I was curious to see what she might have had to say about Norway, since the crazy Anders and the crazy Ann have so much in common. In an interesting but natural take on it, she used the tragedy as a vehicle for espousing her peculiar brand of tough talk. When you encounter a shooter, says she, you run towards him even if you're unarmed. I suppose this is based on the self-sacrifice that Jesus Himself taught by example.

It's fascinatiing how she and the other pseudo-Christians overlook the part about love your enemies and forgive those who offend.

I have been told over and over again that the first thing one must do when a combat theater unfolds is to seek cover.

I'm sorry, but that is wrong. And yes, I realize that I am directly contradicting the near-unanimous advice of men who have training and experience that I lack. I realize that, but I still must disagree. If I EVER encounter a gunman or gunmen situation as we saw yesterday in Norway, or as in the Giffords shooter in Arizona, or as in musloid Mumbai-syle attacks I will NOT seek cover. The "seek cover" tactic completely hems YOU in and basically demands that the gunman move into a position such that YOU have a shot on him, but he doesn't have a shot on you. Guys, that's never going to happen. And it is completely pullusfimus. (she defines this as Latin for chicken-shit).

Any adult with any degree of physical capability, regardless of armament, upon seeing a shooter should immediately RUN AT THE S.O.B. as hard and as fast as possible. If you have a gun, you draw it and start shooting as soon as you can. If you have a knife, draw it and brandish it and then go for the face and neck as soon as you are in range. If you are unarmed you can still tackle him and beat him into submission or death, if necessary, or gouge his eyes out (ladies).

Absolutely fascinating. All that bluster and boasting, "if I EVER encounter..." Yet, not a word of sympathy for a disturbed man who has the same ideas she does about the threat of Islam.

On the American Jingoist there's an amusing correspondence between Ann and a nasty Islamist who attacked her with name calling and threats.  Her response:

Come and get it, Player. Anytime. I will never submit to islam. allah is satan and mohammed was a child-raping, cross-dressing, homosexual con-artist. If you want to get serious about jihad and take this deal to the next level, you come and see me. World War 3 will start on my front porch, guaran-fricking-teed.

Is she the toughest-talking li'l gal you ever did hear? She is for me.  Don't you love that use of "fricking?"  You know what that is, of course? That's what hate-spewing raving lunatic pseudo-Christians say instead of "fucking," because I suppose that offends the Lord.

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.

A Texas Gun Violence Story with Some Interesting Twists

As I listen to those who make vile claims in support of their Islamophobia, like so many on the right speaking out of fear and ignorance, including those who are hysterical about the non-existent threat of sharia law, this should be a potent example of the reality of mainstream Islamic practice.  It is incidentally a commentary on Texas gun violence.  I have to wonder how easily the shooter obtained the gun, and if it was done legally or illegally.

from MSNBC, Crime and Courts

Attacker executed despite victim’s efforts to save him

Federal judge rejects novel bid to use 'victim rights' law to buy time for condemed

Brandon Thibodeaux for msnbc.com .

By Kari Huus Reporter

Brandon Thibodeaux for msnbc.com

Rais Bhuiyan launched a campaign to halt the execution of Mark Stroman, who shot him in the face during a 2001 rampage that left two other men dead. Bhuiyan made a last-ditch effort to win a stay using a novel argument based on the Texas Victims' Rights Bill.

The state of Texas executed convicted murderer Mark Stroman on Wednesday after rejecting the last move in a campaign to spare his life by a survivor of the former meth addict’s Sept. 11-inspired shooting spree.

Stroman was given a lethal injection of drugs and pronounced dead at 8:53 p.m. local time, Michelle Lyons, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice spokesman, said.
"The Lord Jesus Christ be with me," Stroman said, according to Lyons. "I am at peace. Hate is going on in this world, and it has to stop. One second of hate will cause a lifetime of pain. I'm still a proud American. Texas loud, Texas proud. God bless America, God bless everyone."
Dallas resident Rais Bhuiyan, one of three men shot by Stroman in 2001 — and the sole survivor — had lobbied for months for Texas to commute Stroman’s death penalty in favor of a life sentence without parole. The 37-year-old tech professional argued that his Muslim faith calls on him to forgive and seek mercy for Stroman, 41.
He made an unprecedented argument early Wednesday in an Austin court based on the Texas Victims Bill of Rights, requesting a stay of execution so that he can pursue his right to mediation with the offender — a move that could have postponed Stroman’s execution for months or even years.
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the argument, but a late state court appeal by Bhuiyan in Austin delayed the execution, local media reported, citing The Associated Press.
The last-minute lawsuit — naming Gov. Rick Perry as a plaintiff — was an ironic twist on the state law, as “victims’ rights” are often invoked to justify harsh penalties for offenders.
“Plaintiff strongly desires mediation and reconciliation, and has for a long time,” the legal complaint said, alleging that the state never informed Bhuiyan of this right. “(His) own ability to reach a cathartic point in his own recovery depends very much on his being able to make full efforts to help Mark Stroman to reach his full potential, and to overcome the very negative lessons that he was taught as a child. … This will inevitable be a process that will take time."
Injury… outweighed
After several hours U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel issued an order denying a stay of execution, saying that the case had failed to meet several prerequisites that would give the federal court jurisdiction to intervene. Among them, Bhuiyan had failed to show “a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued,” he said.
A ruling in Bhuiyan’s favor “would allow litigants to delay an execution indefinitely by filing a succession of requests for injunctive relief in unrelated civil actions mere days before an execution,” Yeakel wrote. “… Thus, the irreparable injury asserted by Bhuiyan — his claim of violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights statute being rendered moot — is outweighed by the damage to the operation of the criminal justice system as a whole that would result from this Court’s granting the request.”

Cultural Norms; Culture Wars and Right Wing Ignorance - for Mike G.

Mike G. in commenting here made the observation that the founder of Islam, the prophet Mohammed, was a pedophile, way back in the 7th century.

Just for giggles, to point out the prevalence of child marriages in Europe, within Christianity, I did a quickie google search.  For openers:

"Child and teenage marriages in medieval Europe - common as a cup of tea."
"John McLaughlin, PhD, writes in his article MEDIEVAL CHILD MARRIAGE: ABUSE OF WARDSHIP"....(yes, there are entire books devoted to the topic of European Christian child marriages)

And then we have the institutionalizing of it in Roman Catholic canon law:
"By 'child' in this context is meant a male or female human being above the age of 7 -- for either gender -- and below the age of 14 for males, and 12 for females. This follows medieval canon law, in recognizing these as the limits of infancy and puberty" for purposes of marriage.
This site goes on to list a number of the more famous examples, like:

-"Thus, for example, when the Wife of Bath boasts of having had five husbands since the age of 12, she is not casting herself in the role of child bride, technically speaking, at least not in medieval terms. Lee Patterson's discussion of child marriage in Peter Beidler's lovely new edition of The Wife of Bath, is thus irrelevant to the present discussion, except as it relates to Richard and Isabel; Christine de Pisan, for example, was already aged 15 when she was 'given' to her husband, and therefore according to medieval definition an adult woman."
Bianca of Savoy, Duchess of Milan was married aged 13 (1350), and aged 14 when she gave birth to her eldest son, Giangaleazzo (1351).
Theodora Comnena was aged 13 when she was married King Baldwin III of Jerusalem (1158).
Agnes of France was 12 when, widowed, she was married to Andronicus Comnenus, Byzantine Emperor (1182).
St Elizabeth of Portugal was aged 12 when she was married to King Denis of Portugal and gave birth to three children shortly thereafter.
Caterina Sforza was betrothed aged 9, married aged 14, and gave birth aged 15.
Lucrezia Borgia was married to her first husband aged 13 and bore a son within a few years.
Beatrice d'Este was betrothed aged 5 and married aged 15.

So, is Christianity a religion of pedophiles? Because if we are going to fault Islam for the practice, shouldn't we fault Christianity for embracing and formalizing and institutionalizing it as well, from before the 7th century onwards?  Then there is the Ethiopian Orthodox church which still encourages marriages of girls as young as 7.

I object to the application of a double standard, where something is used as an excuse to condemn one group, while totally ignoring the same thing in another similar or related group.

Lets look at child marriage in Judaism:
I was lazy; I just grabbed the handy wikipedia article for this one, because the citations would have just been too darn long.  The tradition is one of marrying off  THREE YEAR OLDS, based on texts common to the Talmud and the old testament of the Bible.  So, Mike G.....are you going to condemn Christianity and Judaism, because their common founders practiced marriage with 3 year old girls?  I'm just curious, since you clearly don't seem very familiar with eithe Christiantiy or Judaism, and even less familiar with Islam.

Child marriage by religion

In Judaism

Main article: Child marriage in Judaism

Child marriage was possible in Judaism, due to the very low marriageable age for females. A ketannah (literally meaning little [one]) was any girl between the age of 3 years and that of 12 years plus one day;[1] a ketannah was completely subject to her father's authority, and her father could arrange a marriage for her, whether she agreed to it or not.[1] According to the Talmud, if the marriage did end (due to divorce or the husband's death), any further marriages were optional; the ketannah had the right to annul them.[2] If the father was dead, or missing, the brothers of the ketannah, collectively, had the right to arrange a marriage for her, as had her mother,[1] although in these situations a ketannah would always have the right to annul her marriage, even if it was the first.[2]

The choice of a ketannah to annul a marriage, known in Hebrew as mi'un (literally meaning refusal/denial/protest),[2] lead to a true annulment, not a divorce; a divorce document (get) was not necessary,[3] and a ketannah who did this was not regarded by legal regulations as a divorcee, in relation to the marriage.[4] Unlike divorce, mi'un was regarded with distaste by many rabbinic writers,[2] even in the Talmud;[5] in earlier classical Judaism, one major faction - the House of Shammai - argued that such annulment rights only existed during the betrothal period (erusin), and not once the actual marriage (nissu'in) had begun.[6]

Now please, Mike G, and your fellow ignorant bigots on the right wing fringe, NOTICE THE DATE on the following.  This is an article about 21st century child marriage in ISRAEL as part of traditional Judaism.   Betrothal btw? Defined by actual intercourse traditionally, not just a promise to marry later.

http://blogs.forward.com/sisterhood-blog/136547/
Jewish Child Brides — Why the Barbaric Practice of Marrying Off Young Girls Persists

March 29, 2011, 10:56am

By Elana Maryles Sztokman

"Ever since the marriage of Rebecca and Isaac over three millennia ago, the children of Abraham and Sarah have toyed with the practice of betrothing their daughters at very young ages. Of course not all scholars agree that Rebecca was actually three years old when she took the fateful decision to feed Eliezer’s camels and cement her destiny as a Jewish matriarch. Realistically, many scholars (including Maimonides, Tosafot and Sifrei, for example) argue that the age is a fabrication. Nevertheless, the mythology of the girl-bride has relentlessly taken hold, to such an extent that even now, thousands of years later, the practice is frightfully tenacious."

Mike G. tasked me as embracing Islam despite the problems with how women in some Islamic countries are treated.   He apparently decided that was because I was liberal; he was wrong in his conclusion.  I have a view different from his because I am far better read, far better educated, for example, on subjects like the occurrence of child marriages (and they occurred for boys too) in the three Abrahamic religions, and in non-Abrahamic / polytheistic religions.  What Mike G. would do well to understand is that a different conclusion can arise not out of a deficiency of ideology but from different information - information he clearly lacks.

I would suggest before he joins up with the right wing culture wars, including the rampant hatred for Islam, that he be better informed and far far better educated in forming his opinions - and in criticizing mine.  That willingness to condemn without fact or sufficient knowledge epitomizes for me the concept of an ignorant bigot.

Now, Mike G........do you want to tell me again how there is nothing in common between Islam, and Judaism and Christianity?  Because I'm just warming up on the things you apparently don't know about all three, particularly the things they have in common.  As a 'liberal woman' I like to be fact based, reality-rooted, and really, really well read.