Arizona Bans Karma--Seriously.

Since the dark days of the attacks on America by radical, Islamic terrorists on September 11th 2001, there has been a growing intolerance here for non-Judeo-Christian religions. This has, unfortunately, been mostly aimed at the American-Muslim community in a misguided attempt to combat radical Islam.

Unfortunately, there are numerous people in America who can't seem to make a distinction between an Islamic terrorist and an Islamic moderate practicing their religion freely as allowed under the American Constitution. But I digress. One of the targets of the this fear of anything Islamic has come in the form of a wide-spread paranoia of Sharia law.

In brief, Sharia law is law based on the Islamic holy book, the Qur'an (koran). The Islamophobia is so rampant in America these days that states have taken to banning Sharia law in a preemptive move to prevent such law from taking root. This is occurring despite no movement to impose or establish Sharia law in America. The silliness of it all is that such moves by these states are a waste of time since the American Constitution supersedes any other form of law within America!!

But the politicians of Arizona didn't stop there. They wanted to make sure ALL non-Christian religious beliefs would have no influence in Arizona state law. This included banning karma, which I didn't even know was possible considering karma is basically the idea of, "cause and effect" or causality. So, in one sense, by banning karma, these politicians are essentially trying to ban the scientific law of cause and effect. They seriously banned karma within the state of Arizona, which for a Buddhist is all rather odd considering karma isn't really a form of law to base a government around, but rather a natural consequence of our actions. I'm not angry or offended by their attempt to ban karma but I am certainly amused by it all!! It makes me laugh because banning karma is like banning gravity.

However, what I do take seriously is the generalized intolerance of anything that's not Christian or of Anglo-Saxon cultural origin. The last thing we need in this already complicated world of suffering is additional reasons to divide ourselves and fuel hatred. It truly makes my heart ache to see such narrow-minded thinking in my country, which has often been the example of tolerance in the world.

~Peace to all beings~

Not That This Should Need to Be Said But: ‘See, Officer, I Can Too Take That Picture’

You won't be able to read this version of this internal memo from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. But what it basically says is that law enforcement officers should stop harassing photographers who are making pictures of putatively "sensitive" Federal sites. It explicitly instructs officers to not seize equipment or otherwise interfere with photographers as they go about their business. You can find links to a life size (legible and printable) version of the document here at The New York Times.

Politics in America: Craven Press, Credulous Public

I want to call attention to two columns that Glenn Greenwald has posted at Salon.com in the past few days. The first is on the putative terrorist attack 'foiled' by the FBI in Portland, Oregon last week; the second is on the reaction to the Wikileaks document dump this weekend. In both offerings Greenwald rightly focuses in on the credulousness of the public and the cravenness of the mainstream press in the face of assertions made by government officials.

Here are some of the good bits from Greenwald's response to reaction to the alleged terrorist plot:

"Media accounts are almost uniformly trumpeting this event exactly as the FBI describes it. Loyalists of both parties are doing the same, with Democratic Party commentators proclaiming that this proves how great and effective Democrats are at stopping The Evil Terrorists, while right-wing polemicists point to this arrest as yet more proof that those menacing Muslims sure are violent and dangerous.

What's missing from all of these celebrations is an iota of questioning or skepticism. All of the information about this episode -- all of it -- comes exclusively from an FBI affidavit filed in connection with a Criminal Complaint against Mohamud. As shocking and upsetting as this may be to some, FBI claims are sometimes one-sided, unreliable and even untrue, especially when such claims -- as here -- are uncorroborated and unexamined.That's why we have what we call "trials" before assuming guilt or even before believing that we know what happened: because the government doesn't always tell the complete truth, because they often skew reality, because things often look much different once the accused is permitted to present his own facts and subject the government's claims to scrutiny. [ . . . ]

It may very well be that the FBI successfully and within legal limits arrested a dangerous criminal intent on carrying out a serious Terrorist plot that would have killed many innocent people, in which case they deserve praise. [ . . . ]

But it may also just as easily be the case that the FBI -- as they've done many times in the past -- found some very young, impressionable, disaffected, hapless, aimless, inept loner; created a plot it then persuaded/manipulated/entrapped him to join, essentially turning him into a Terrorist; and then patted itself on the back once it arrested him for having thwarted a "Terrorist plot" which, from start to finish, was entirely the FBI's own concoction."

His column on Wikileaks is less easy to summarize because its targets are more diffuse. In it he excoriates the press for its servility and various commentators for their hypocrisy and callousness. The ultimate focus is on how Americans seem to be wholly unable to think critically in the face of government duplicity and dissembling.

Terrorism - American "Christian" Style

Members of the Ku Klux Klan participate in a cross lighting
ceremony at a Klansman's home in Warrenville, S.C., Saturday.
KKK Imperial Wizard Duwayne Johnson said it was the first
public cross lighting in 50 years. Photograph © Reuters.

__________
P.S.: Duwayne is no relation!

A 9/11 Message ~ I'm a Photographer Not a Terrorist!

"They may seek to strike fear in us; but they are no
match for our resilience. We do not succumb to fear ... "

"We will not sacrifice the liberties we cherish or
hunker down behind walls of suspicion and mistrust ... "
~ Barack Obama, 11 September 2010

*****

Right. So, just what is it that Obama is saying when one of his agencies (the inimitable TSA) is circulating this message - and when they seem totally tone deaf when photographers object to it? What part of the message that there is zero connection between photography and terrorism are our officials missing? Apparently, the whole thing. I had hoped that once BushCo left town we might return to something resembling evidence based politics and policy. So much for the hope.

Ground Zero Mosque Gets "O.k." but Still Faces Opposition.

So the much ballyhooed "Ground Zero Mosque" will go ahead and be built, which isn't just the right thing to do--It's the American thing to do. The opposition to this mosque said that it was too close to the "Ground Zero" site and was thus a slap in the face to the memorial of those Americans who died during the September 11th terrorist attacks. First of all let's clear something up right away; there were Muslims who died on 9/11 along side Christians and Jews. Including innocent Muslims upon the planes used as missiles. So when they say this mosque is spitting upon the memory of those who died I guess they only mean Judeo-Christians. This is intolerance disgustingly hidden behind the American flag to soften the face of their hatred toward all Muslims. Increasingly Americans are packaging radical beliefs behind symbols of good old Americana, which unfortunately often legitimizes such extremist ideologies to the vulnerable.

The people who are opposing the building of this mosque and cultural center are also standing in opposition to religious freedom in America, which we supposedly hold dear. This reverence for the freedom of religion is ironically often espoused by the very same people who are protesting this mosque!! They say this mosque is a monument to radical Islamic terrorism, which is beyond insulting and embarrassing to listen to as an American who works hard to be inclusive. It is the height of arrogance, stupidity and bigotry to lump all Muslims of the world in with Islamic terrorists who probably consist of less than one percent of the worlds BILLIONS of Muslims. Sadly, however, this is the kind of ugliness you often hear from Americans whose only connection with Islam is the 9/11 terrorists and the wars against al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Anyone who has interacted with an average Muslim knows the truth; that most Muslims are peaceful, kind and tolerant of others. I spent two years living in West Africa where Islam is a popular belief system, and some of the nicest people I met there were in fact Muslim. The Muslims I met would invite me into their homes off the street and feed me like a welcome guest. And the irony perhaps to some was that I was there in West Africa as an official Christian missionary!! But that wasn't important to them or myself. I was a guest in their country and guests are treated with great respect in many Muslim households.

Out of respect for that invitation I refrained from talking religion but when the subject was raised by them, I would discuss it. However, it was always respectfully discussed by both sides. And interestingly, when we did converse about faith it was often about what we had in common rather than apart. Rather than preached to or insulted for my religion at the time, I was often shown the passages within the Qu'ran that speak reverently about Jesus Christ. And I, in turn, asked respectful questions to learn about a religion that was new to me at the time. Islam isn't an "evil" religion and most people would find that if they had an open, respectful and honest dialogue with the average Muslim that they'd find more in common than not.

In the end, Americans need to come to terms with what it means to be an American. If you think it's o.k. to ban a mosque because of 9/11 then by that same logic we should ban churches close to the sites of abortion clinic bombings too.

Shahidul Alam Crossfire

What is the last thing a person sees before being murdered by quasi-official death squads? That is among the matters Bangladeshi photographer Shahidul Alam is trying to address in this series of images. You can read about his work here at The New York Times photography blog "Lens" and, more directly, here among Alam's own "musings."

Note that the images straddle the line between fact and fiction in that they allude to actual cases but do not simply document them. Even so, as The Times post makes clear, speaking out on this topic cannot be safe. You will note too that the exhibition of his images has passed and that it was in Dhaka. Perhaps this small increase in publicity, however belated, will help forestall risk for Alam.

Marketing Paranoia and Suspicion

Graphic © fulana

I often wonder 'Where Do These Things Come From Anyway?'. These things include various witty slogans that seem idiotic but, for many, simply irresistible. In The New York Times today this story about "If You See Something, Say Something" the anti-terrorism mantra that has been popping up all over. You can see an example here and another here of how this fine advice gets incorporated into in public policy. The implementation is why I side with the skeptics and why I wish advertising execs would restrain their impulse to do something. Allen Kay! Stick to peddling shoes or usury and leave the rest of us alone!

Count me among the skeptics like Bill Dobbs who is quoted in the The Times report. Beyond the baleful political consequences there is the plea for common sense. Ask yourself: 'If I were standing near a vehicle that began smoking would I need a sign with a pithy slogan to prompt me to contact the local authorities? Or, on the other hand, am I actually a sensible adult?'

Photography Not Terrorism: Thank the Lord for Libertarians

The NY Civil Liberties Union is pressing a legal challenge to U.S. Government regulations that led to the arrest of photographer Antonio Musumeci outside Daniel Patrick Moynihan Federal Courthouse in Manhattan. You can find reports here and here. You can find street level images of the Courthouse and its surroundings by simply using Google maps; this is a point I've made here before. Musumeci is a libertarian (as is the fellow he was photographing on the day they were arrested) accounting, no doubt, for his willingness to seek legal redress.

What's Wrong With This Picture?

The problem? They look like "us!" This is the face of Christian fundamentalist terrorism in the U.S.; of course you won't hear the 't-word' used by, say, The New York Times. For the putatively liberal media, the "Hutaree" remain "apocalyptic Christian militants" not a terrorist outfit aiming to kill law enforcement officers and, thereby, hopefully, to foment revolution! The folks at The Times tie themselves into knots denying that this is political extremism: although the terrorists "were plotting to kill law enforcement officers in hopes of inciting an antigovernment uprising" they were "motivated by apocalyptic religious scenarios more than any secular political fears." Right. If Islamist fundamentalists were indicted for exactly the same activities the press would be having a field-day. But these salt-of-the-earth white Americans surely couldn't be terrorists could they?

A Terrorist by Any Other Name

There is a story today in The New York Times that raises important issues about American political discourse. It is a story about law enforcement officials planning for "the next angry man" - not the next terrorist, please! Of course, there is the 'background' - relevant or otherwise:

" The Army doctor who opened fire at Fort Hood. The man who flew a plane into the Internal Revenue Service offices in Austin. The professor who killed three colleagues in Alabama because she had been denied tenure. "

Then of John Bedell, the man who tried to shoot his way into the Pentagon recently,the story goes on:

"Here was our next active shooter, mentally disturbed and with an anger that had metastasized into a justification to attack the Government, often the catch-all phrase for the oppressor, the deceiver, the denier of dreams. In this view, it seems, the Government is made of paper, concrete and whispers."

What is wrong here? Well, in the first instance, the female academic in Alabama was perhaps disturbed, but she did not (to the best of my knowledge) compose an anti-government screed before shooting her colleagues. She was pissed at having been denied tenure. She may have been deranged, but there is no evidence that her grievance was anything other than personal. On the other hand, the other three - all men - fall into a lineage of domestic terrorists who decide that there is some reason to turn their imagined grievances into political violence. They may be mentally unhinged, but they are not just unhinged. They are unhinged men who do a typically right-wing and typically destructive and self-destructive thing. A while ago I noted this post and this one, by Glen Greenwald at Salon.com; there is a more recent follow-up here. Greenwald poses the pertinent questions 'Why do our government and law enforcement officials and our press not call things by their proper names? Why do they refuse to call violent, anti-government extremists what they are - namely terrorists? More basically, given that they all flaunt the 't-word', what exactly are they talking about? I guess the folks at The Times have not asked themselves that yet.

British Authorities Continue to Harass Photographers (even more)

The folks at The Guardian have published two video interviews with amateur photographers who have been harassed by police for taking pictures on the streets.* In both instances the photographers video-taped their initial interactions with the authorities and The Guardian includes that footage.

This is a depressing pattern - in both the UK and the US - about which I have posted numerous times. Not only is the British law overly broad and poorly specified, but it seems pretty clear that the 'cop on the beat' is in most cases clueless about what the law does and does not allow. As a result, citizens are being questioned, detained and arrested for no reason whatsoever. In terms of their absurdity the interactions between the photographers and the police remind me of nothing so much as old Monty-Python sketches. Unfortunately the absurdity wears thin in the face of the more or less systematic violation of civil rights.

You can find the video interviews, the first with Simona Bonomo here and the second with Bob Patefield here. I admire their fortitude in the face of the police. But I also wonder whether in the U.S. their refusals might not have encountered what one might call a more vigorous response on the part of police.
__________
* Thanks Chris!

On the Obama Administration's Policy on Extra-Judicial Assasination of American Citizens: A Quiz

Which of these things is unlike the others?

(1) "Governments shall prohibit by law all extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions and shall ensure that any such executions are recognized as offences under their criminal laws, and are punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account the seriousness of such offences. Exceptional circumstances including a state of war or threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked as a justification of such executions. Such executions shall not be carried out under any circumstances ..."*

(2) "Being a US citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives overseas if the individual is working with terrorists and planning to attack fellow Americans." ~ Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair**

(3) "No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . ." ~ Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment V
_____________
*Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, E.S.C. res. 1989/65, annex, 1989 U.N. ESCOR Supp. (No. 1) at 52, U.N. Doc. E/1989/89 (1989). Find document here.
** See news report here based on earlier report here based on initial report here.