Salafism: A Pink Explanation and Reader

Salafism began as a breakaway from the Hanbali madhhab of Sunni Islam, but no longer resembles either the Hanbali madhhab in particular or Sunni Islam in general. The Sal...afist departure from traditional Islamic scholarship has resulted in differences in theology and in jurisprudence.
In terms of scholarly method, the sect rejects the idea that it is necessary to follow the rulings of one qualified scholar or a school of qualified scholars. Islamic scholarship is achieved through training in the Islamic sciences by a reliable instructor whose chain of training and knowledge is unbroken until the very early days of Islam. One is considered to be a reliable scholar after one has been approved by a reliable instructor or scholarly committee.

The Wahhabi departure from traditional Islamic scholarship has resulted in differences in theology and in jurisprudence.

The reasons that the beliefs of the Salafists are frowned on is that most of them involve tajsim, or attributing body/mass to Allah. This is the main difference between Sunni (and Shia) `aqidah and Wahhabi `aqidah. In addition the attribution of a literal body to Allah, Salafists have adopted the belief that the Prophets are not protected from minor sins.

In terms of scholarly method, the sect rejects the idea that it is necessary to follow the rulings of one qualified scholar or a school of qualified scholars.

Most Salafists profess that God has a literal body. This is because of their tendency towards the literal interpretation of Islamic source-texts such as the Qur'an and the Ahadith. There are also other theological differences, but this is the most major. Neither Sunni nor Shia Muslims accept this literalist interpretation of Islamic texts and the resulting literalist view of God.

In terms of practise, Salafists reject the validity of intercession. Their basic worship, the salat (prayers), is a hodge-podge of aspects of salat according to the various Sunni Islamic madhahib. This happened because of the picking and choosing that occurred when the sect was formed. They have also deviated from accepted methods of purifying objects from najisat; and they have changed certain rulings pertaining to wudu.

Salafist methods, beliefs, and practises are rejected by both Shia and Sunni Islam.

The Beliefs of the Sunni Way
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=2252&CATE=24
Salafis go against the Sunnis in [their] belief that Allah has a wajh (lit. “face”), ‘ayn (lit. “eye”), yad (lit. “hand”), and qadam (lit. “foot”) in the literal sense of these words. [h: They also go against the Sunnis by believing] that He Most High’s entity is literally above the heaven, adducing as proof certain verses and hadiths, although they are mistaken in their understanding.

Rather, the position of the righteous early Muslims from among the Companions, Followers, and followed Imams is that Allah is transcendently beyond the literal meaning of the above-mentioned things because of the baseless anthropomorphism that they comprise, and because...the verses and hadiths that have mentioned these matters are interpreted according to meanings that befit His Most High’s entity.
...
As for a person’s believing that Allah is literally characterized by the above-mentioned matters, this is a completely false position and it goes against the position of the vast majority of the Imams of the Muslims in every time and place. Among the useful books about this subject are Daf‘u Shubah al-Tashbih bi-Akuff al-Tanzih, by the Hanbali Imam and hadith master, Ibn al-Jawzi, and Idah al-Dalil fi Qat‘i Hujaj Ahl al-Ta‘til, by the great Shafi‘i Imam, Badr al-Din b. Jama‘ah. Both books have been published.

There are several articles about this issue. One can find them at http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/default.htm or http://www.sunnah.org/aqida/anthro/indxanthro.htm. Another source of reliable information about Sunni Islam is http://www.sunnipath.com/.

Literalism and the Attributes of Allah
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/littlk.htm

Is Salafi Aqida the Same as Sunni Aqida?
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=124&CATE=24

Who or What is a Salafi?
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1685&CATE=91

Matters of belief, and the difference between mainstream Sunnis and Salafis
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=7030&CATE=24

Freedom Is Delicious. Je suis arrivée.Admins can edit posts and moderate comments. Authors can post.

Michigan State Sen Mike Bishop, not Gov Jennifer Granholm, Cut Education

The following are only copy-pastes.

State Senate's $600M budget cuts condemned
Charlie Cain and Mark Hornbeck, Detroit News
24 Mar 2007
http://detnews.com/article/20070324/POLITICS/703240403/State-Senate-s-$600M-budget-cuts-condemned
Educators, city leaders and advocates for the poor, mentally impaired and disabled expressed anger Friday in the wake of some $600 million in state budget cuts passed by the Republican-controlled Senate.
The list of budget-balancing reductions finally became public Thursday night when the Senate voted along partisan lines to slash school aid, health care programs, transportation and a host of other state programs and services.
Jim Ryan, superintendent of the Plymouth-Canton Community Schools, said his district has cut $8 million the past five years, and is trying to slash $5.5 million from next year's budget.
Now, a $34-per-student school aid cut passed by the Senate would take another $600,000 with only a few months left in the school year.
"We're cutting into basic education now. There are no frills here, I don't care what anybody says," Ryan said.
Added Justin King, executive director of the Michigan Association of School Boards: "I'm ticked off. There's no courage in Lansing. There needs to be a discussion about quality of life, not just tax cuts and budget cuts. I expect more of the people I elect than to wait around for the next crisis."

Proposed budget to cut higher education funding
Ashley A Smith, State news
11 Sept 2007
http://www.statenews.com/index.php/article/2007/09/proposed_budget_to_cut_higher_education_funding
Michigan’s Senate Appropriations Committee met Tuesday to review a proposed budget that would eliminate funding to higher education and other services in an effort to close the state’s budget deficit. The legislation proposed by Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, would reduce Michigan’s $1.7 billion deficit by more than $1 billion through reductions and reforms.

Granholm threatens to veto budget if education is cut
Todd A. Heywood, Michigan Messenger
25 Feb 2010
http://michiganmessenger.com/35241/granholm-threatens-to-veto-budget-if-education-is-cut
Gov. Jennifer Granholm told the Grand Rapids Press editorial team that if the state legislature plans on cutting education funding, they should also plan on making sure they have a veto-proof majority. Otherwise, she’s going to veto the measure and shut the state government down. “That’s something the voters will reward by throwing them all out,” said Granholm, who faces term-limits and will not be on the November ballot. “I’m not going to cut public education again,” Granholm said in a meeting with Press editors. The threat comes as Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop (R-Rochester) continues to push a so-called “cuts-only” budget, and days after Michigan Speaker of the House, Andy Dillon (D-Redford Township) clarified he has no intention of voting for a “cuts-only” budget that he directed his staff to create.

Hope for a Mike Bishop-Andy Dillon budget plan
Susan J Demas, Capitol Chronicles
11 Sept 2009
http://blog.mlive.com/capitolchronicles/2009/09/hope_for_a_mike_bishopandy_dil.html
Republicans are united against raising taxes and committed to slashing $1.2 billion in health care, police and education for those already reeling in this economy.

Freedom Is Delicious. Je suis arrivée.Admins can edit posts and moderate comments. Authors can post.

American Oil: Myths and Realities

Myth: The US gets our oil from the Middle East and the Arab world.

Fact: We get most of our oil from Canada. Other countries in the top 15 oil suppliers to the US are Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela, Iraq, Angola, Brazil. Algeria, Colombia, Ecuador, Russia, Kuwait, the United Kingdom, and Argentina. Every day, these 15 countries sell us approximately 8,592,000 barrels of oil. The Arab countries sell us approximately 2,014,000 barrels of oil a day. I was generous and included Algeria, because its population is Muslim, and we all know those Muzzies are all alike, and all Muzzies are Arab, and all that stereotypical nonsense. Even so, those Arab countries only account for 23.44% of oil imports from the top 15 countries from which the US imports oil. Not only is that not "most of our oil," it isn't even anywhere near half. That's from the top 15 oil-importing countries, mind you, not all of them. Someone who is friskier than I can do the math on that one.

Source: Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries, US Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html retrieved Mon 07 Mar 2011 by Pink Muslimah

Myth: All we have to do to rid ourselves of dependence on foreign oil is use our own oil.

Fact: The United States oil reserves stands at 22.3 billion barrels. We consume 20.59 million barrels each day. A bit of math reveals that American oil reserves would last the country a grand total of three years. Someone will have some explaining to do to our children and grandchildren, about whom the GOP obsess ever so much.

Sources:
U.S. Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Natural Gas Liquids Reserves, US Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/crude_oil_natural_gas_reserves/cr.html

Energy Information Administration (EIA) via "Top World Oil Producers, Exporters, Consumers, and Importers, 2006," Infoplease.com, retrieved Mon 07 Mar 2011 by Pink Muslimah

Myth: We could solve that problem by tapping into our emergency reserves.

Fact: our Strategic Petroleum Reserve stands at about 726,500,000 barrels of crude oil. At a consumption rate of 20.59 million barrels per day, that would last us another 34 days. Yup. Another whole month.

Sources:
Strategic Petroleum Reserve Inventory, http://www.spr.doe.gov/dir/dir.html, retrieved Mon 07 Mar 2011 by Pink Muslimah

Energy Information Administration (EIA) via "Top World Oil Producers, Exporters, Consumers, and Importers, 2006," Infoplease.com, retrieved Mon 07 Mar 2011 by Pink Muslimah

Freedom Is Delicious. Je suis arrivée.Admins can edit posts and moderate comments. Authors can post.

My Thoughts on Khaled Abu Fadl

A note, first: there are some areas in which I agree with Khaled Abou el Fadl, mostly regarding the spirit of Islam. He has spoken against the overreach of Muslim-led governments, both modern and historical. In his "The Search for Beauty in Islam" (chaper "The Book Massacres"), he referred to restrictions on free thinking when the Mongols sacked Baghdad and then repudiated the "Thought Mongols of today."

Abou el Fadl also had an excellent point regarding the application of certain morality coes. He discussed the punishment fo adultery, for example, in "Islamic Sex Laws Are Easy to Break, Impossible to Enforce": "Illicit sexual relations must be condemned. At the same time, people should mind their own business, and spying or slandering cannot be tolerated. The solution was to make the moral point that fornication and adultery are terrible crimes, and only if they could be proven would they be punished severely. Nevertheless, the issue is generally between a person and God. Societal interests are implicated when these crimes are committed openly and publicly."

Abou el Fadl's "The Place of Tolerance in Islam," the first chapter in a book the by same name (Beacon Press, 2002; available online at http://books.google.com/books?id=N3FIT27sjWAC), is approximately 20 pages of excellent insight, as well.

In addition, Mr Fadl has his thumb on my political pulse. In "The Orphans of Modernity and the Clash of Civilisations," he railed against President Bush's policies as colonialist: "The fact that Bush issues repeated assurances of his good will towards the Muslim world is unremarkable. One does not have to go far back in history to find similar assurances by colonising powers as they proceeded to dismantle traditional Islamic institutions and challenge Islamic epistemologies." He also spent an entire speech titled "Fascism Triumphant?" decrying Geert Wilders.

Even so, I cannot bring myself to agree with the way in which Mr Fadl has distorted Islamic fiqh and attempted to remove it from its beautiful and rich history. He has questioned the role of ijma, or scholarly consensus, as a basic, fundamental element of juristic methodology; and he has questioned the impurity of dogs, the validity of hitting the wife as punishment for major marital infraction, the prohibition against a woman leading congregational prayers, and the restriction against Muslim women marrying Christian men.

Regarding ijma, Khaled Abou el Fadl has stated, "The claim of ijma' is the very process by which ijma' is formed; the claim of ijma' always far preceded its existence. ... Does it matter that the jurist al-Razi (d 606/1210) and many others held that whoever contradicts the ijma' is not a kafir or fasiq?" ["The search for beauty in Islam," p 26, Rowman & Littlefield, 2006, available online at http://books.google.com/books?id=Rzzlj9K9KXYC] In so saying, Fadl ignores the fact that scholalry consensus has been an intrinsic force of Islamic fiqh for two millennia, or five-sixth of the existence of Islam on the face o the earth. He also seems to forget that ijma was developed at about the time when the first generations of Muslims were dying off, necessitating the systematic development of a scholarly class in Islamic jurisprudence. That is not to say that hints were not heard of ijma before it was referred to as such. Various narrations mention companions of Prophet Muhammad referring their questioners to another companion, saying that the other was more learned in the issue than he - and this in spite of the fact that the companion being questioned was himself knowledgeable.

Fadl has criticised the Islamic prohibition against Muslim women marrying Christian men, saying, "Surprising to me, all schools of thought prohibited a Muslim woman from marrying a man who is a kitabi (among the people of the book). I am not aware of a single dissenting opinion on this, which is rather unusual for Islamic jurisprudence because Muslim jurists often disagreed on many issues, but this is not one of them. ... In all honesty, personally, I am not convinced that the evidence prohibiting Muslim women from marrying a kitabi is very strong." ["On Christian Men marrying Muslim Women," at http://scholarofthehouse.org/oninma.html] What he doesn't seem to realise is that the Qur'an itself prohibited such liasons in verses such as
وَلَا تُنكِحُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَتَّىٰ يُؤْمِنُوا
(2:221)

and

لَا هُنَّ حِلٌّ لَّهُمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحِلُّونَ لَهُنَّ
60:10

These prohibitions were directed at both genders. However, when the Qur'an later lifted the prohibiton against marrying non-Muslims, it only did so for men, saying in 5:5 that it had become permissible for them to marry women from among the People of the Book (Christians and Jews): وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ Therefore, women are still under the prohibition against marrying Christian men, a prohibition that remains in effect as long as the qur'an is valid to Islam.

Mr Abou el Fadl attempts to ban hitting one's wife in retribution for nushuz, or serious rebellion, using what he calls "moral analysis" - "All I am saying is that this moral analysis would create a duty in our mind to re-investigate our understanding of the law, and to find an interpretation that is consistent with the morality promoted by the fundamentals of the law. What I am saying is that my intuitive sense seems to indicate that the beating of wives is immoral." ["The Search for Beauty in Islam," p 119, Rowman & Littlefield, 2006, available online at http://books.google.com/books?id=Rzzlj9K9KXYC]

In so doing, he has overlooked not only the fact that hitting one's wife is generally banned, with only a small exception, but that Muslim men are commanded repeatedly to treat their wives kindly and never to beat them. for example, Sh Gibril Foud Haddad said, regarding hitting one's wife as punishment for nushuz as "Not even a recommendation." Quoting from a text of Islamic fiqh, he said, "Al-Razi said in his Tafsir on 4:34 (1308/1891 edition 3:222): 'Al-Shaf`i said: "wa al-darbu mubah, wa al-tarku afdal - and hitting is permitted, but not hitting is preferable."'" Then Sh Haddad stated, "The basic rule (asl) is strict prohibition, followed by dispensation (rukhsa)." He also made reference to a statement of Prophet Muhammad in his Final Sermon concerning nushuz, defining nushuz as "an euphemism for adultery because her primary marital duty is spelled out in the hadith as 'not allowing whom you hate to enter your bed nor your house.'" ["Wife Beating," Shaykh Gibril F Haddad, SunniPath, 03 Jul 2005, http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?id=612, also http://www.abc.se/~m9783/fiqhi/fiqha_e32.html]

Other qualified Islamic scholars have pointed out that resorting to hitting as a punishment for nushuz should be rare. Liyakat Takim, responding to a question on the subject, said, "all commentators are in agreement that the third form of corrective measure should be undertaken only as a last resort and should be very mild." ["Ayat 4:34," Liyakat Takim, 10 Dec 1995, at http://www.al-islam.org/organizations/aalimnetwork/msg00015.html] Sayyid Moustafa Qazwini stated in his book, "A New Perspective: Women in Islam" that "the Qur’an does not promote disciplinary action as the first or only means of reform, or as an obligated rule." He went on to say, " The Qur’an states two important actions that must be taken beforehand. ... It is also important to note that this rule is applied only to adverse and consequential situations that pose a danger to the sanctity of the family. The precept must not be used in cases of typical or expectant disagreements that arise normally during a marriage." ["A New Perspective: Women in Islam," Chapter 7: Disciplinary Action, Sayyid Moustafa al Qazwini & Fatma Saleh, pub The Islamic Educational Center of Orange County, 2000, at http://www.al-islam.org/wii-persp-edt2]

One scholar has even quoted a hadith indicating that the permission to hit one's wife in reprisal for nushuz is an exception to a ban on hitting. Ayatullah Ibrahim Amini quoted, "The revered Prophet banned the beating of women, unless in special circumstances" and cited it in Mustadrak, vol 2, p 550 in Chapter 55 ("The Disciplinary Rights of the Husband") of his book "Principles Of Marriage & Family Ethics" [pub Islamic Propagation Organization, 1975, at http://www.al-islam.org/marriageandfamily]

As a matter of fact, Sayyid Qazwini notes how often Muslim scholars discourage hitting one's wife as punishment, encouraging the husband whose back is against the wall to seek a divorce instead.

If the partner foresees that reprimanding [light tap] would not have an effect on resolving the situation then it is best to divorce instead of prolonging and aggravating the situation. ... The only occasion when physical disciplinary action may possibly be administered is when the situation poses dire consequences to the individual, the partner, or the family, and may be foreseen as a means to end the problem. Most scholars recommend that husbands seek assistance from the Islamic courts rather than resorting to the physical infraction in an attempt to resolve any situation.

The scholars then go on to cite ahadith which admonish husbands not to abuse their wives:
* "One should never torture one’s wife physically or otherwise, because whoever does so has violated the norms set by the Almighty and his Messenger." [Irshadul Qulub, as cited by Sayyid Qazwini in "A New Perspective: Women in Islam"]

* "The Prophet never hit a servant, or a female, or anyone else, except in performing Jihad." [
Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, v. 1, p. 368, as cited by Sayyid Qazwini in the same]

* "Women are entrusted to men, and as such are not owners of their fortunes and misfortunes. They are with you like a trust of Allah; so do not hurt them and do not make (the life) difficult for them." [Mustadrak, vol 2, p 551, as cited by Ayatullah Amini in his "Principles Of Marriage & Family Ethics"]

The bottom line, though, shouldl be that, whether Khaled Abou el Fadl likes it or not, permission is granted to husbands to hit their wives if they are extremely disobedient in their marriage. Would that he had shown the same respect for this as he did for the capital punishment which is inflicted only on those who are truly convicted of adultery, remembering that Islam places several conditions on the application of these kinds of punishments before they can actually be carried out.

Regarding the status of dogs in Islam (that is, their ritual impurity or najasah), Abou el Fadl has written the following:

The majority of jurists held that there is no rational basis for this command, and that dogs, like pigs, must be considered impure simply as a matter of deference to the religious text. ... Accordingly, they maintained that dogs do not void a Muslim’s prayer or ritual purity. Other jurists argued that the command mandating that a vessel be washed a number of times was intended as a precautionary health measure. ... As a matter of fact, it is rather striking that, to a very large extent, modern Muslims are unaware of the pre-modern juristic determinations that vindicated the purity of dogs. ["Dogs in the Islamic Tradition and Nature," Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature, Continuum International, New York 2004, at http://scholarofthehouse.org/dinistrandna.html]

The problem with this Mr el Fadl's rejection of the ruling of Islamic scholars that dogs are (at least in part) najis is that, for the most part, mujtahid scholars don't go around proclaiming their rulings as being better than the rulings of others - especially not when the rulings of the others are based on ahadith.

In كتاب الطهارة القسم الثالث of وسائل الشيعة we find the chapter entitled باب طهارة عرق جميع الدواب وأبدانها وما يخرج منمناخرها وأفواهها إلا الكلب والخنزير - one will note that pigs and dogs are grouped together here. One of the ahadith listed in this section contains the following quotefrom Imam Sadiq, after he was questioned about dogs:
رجس نجس ، الحديث
That is to say, they are inherently ritually impure [p 413, as at http://www.rafed.net/books/hadith/wasael-3/was3021.html] The phrase "رجس نجس" is repeated again in the next chapter باب نجاسة الكلب ولو سلوقيا in the second hadith, which is again narrated from Imam Sadiq:
رجس نجس ، لا يتوضأ بفضله ، واصبب ذلك الماء ، واغسله بالتراب أول مرة ثم بالماء

Mr el Fadl's insistence that dogs, as a creation of God, be treated humanely, is indeed an excellent point and perfectly in line with Islamic teachings. However, to insist that the views of the majority of Islamic scholars through the centuries have been misguided is arrogant, if not also misguided.

As for Abou el Fadl's insistence that women are permitted to lead mixed-gender congregational prayers, that claim seems to be far from the truth. He states,

In my view, I look at the evidence and ask the following question: if a female could better teach and instruct the community about the Islamic faith should she be precluded from doing so because she is a female? ... But the legal evidence in favor of such an exclusion is not very strong--it is more an issue of customary practice and male-consensus than direct textual evidence. ... [A] female ought not be precluded from leading jumu'a simply on the grounds of being female. ["On Women Leading Prayer," at http://scholarofthehouse.org/onwolepr.html]

After discussing the Islamic prohibition against men and women praying together admixed in the same rows, Shaykh Ali Jumu'a explained that Umm Waraqa, who is often cited by modernists as having led prayers, only led optional prayers, or led a women-old congregation: "The majority of scholars have understood this hadith as referring to supererogatory prayers, or to leading the women of her household, or as being specific to Umm Waraqa. In spite of this, not a single Muslim from the East or West has followed this anomalous (shadhdh) opinion." ["What is the religion's ruling concerning a woman leading men in prayer?" Sh Ali Jumu`a, via SunniPath, 03 Jul 2005, at http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=5035&CATE=239]

Shaykhs Ilyas Patel and Faraz Rabbani quoted a 19th-century scholar of hadith concerning a narration in which Lady Ayesha led a mixed congregation: "Sayyida Aisha's leading of prayer...indicates the permissibility at times and to teach the women the proper method of prayer. We do not negate the permissibility of this matter, to such an extent that if they were to pray in congregation of their own, we would state the validity of the prayer. (Imam Zafar Usmani, I’la al-Sunan 4: 215) Without such a reason, however, a congregation of women would be prohibitively disliked (makruh tahriman)." [Maraqi al-Falah, Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, as cited in "Women's Congregational Prayer in the Hanafi School," Sh Ilyas Patel and Sh Faraz Rabbani, SunniPath, 21 Oct 2005, at http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?ID=1305]

So a woman leading congregational prayer is generally ruled as highly disliked, and reserved only for situations of necessity, or instructional uses.In the same article, "On Women Leading Prayer," Khaled Abou el Fadl argued that Islamic scholars had historically allowed women to lead congregational prayer. However, Sh Amjad Rasheed explained the weakness of such positions while he was discussing Imam Nawawi's Majmu':

These two opinions [permitting women to lead congregational prayer] go against the position of the majority, as you already know. These [opinions] are an example of an unusual difference of opinion, as explained by Imam Mawardi in the Hawi and there is no sound evidence to prove this [difference]. And the Hadith of Um Waraqa that they have mentioned is not a valid argument, because the Prophet, peace be upon him, permitted her to lead the women of her household, as clearly stated in the narration of Daraqutni from Ibn Qudama. ["Women leading men in prayer," Sh Amjad Rasheed, SunniPath (tr Zaynab Ansari), 06 Jul 2005, at http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=4591&CATE=352]

And finally, Prophet Muhammad has the last word on the topic. The shuyukh whom I quoted above have cited, amongst themselves, two different ahadith which lend themselves strongly to a prohibition of women leading congregational prayers.

On the authority of Aisha (Allah be pleased with her), the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “There is no good in the congregation of women.” Ahmad, and Tabrani in Awsat) ["Women's Congregational Prayer in the Hanafi School," Sh Ilyas Patel and Sh Faraz Rabbani, SunniPath, 21 Oct 2005, at http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?ID=1305]

Jabir, may Allah be pleased with him, where he said: The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, spoke to us and said: "A woman should not lead a man." Ibn Majah and al-Baihaqi ["Women leading men in prayer," Sh Amjad Rasheed, SunniPath (tr Zaynab Ansari), 06 Jul 2005, at http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=4591&CATE=352]

On five different subjects - ijma, najisat of digs, hitting the wife as punishment for nushuz, women leading congregational prayer, and Muslim women marrying Christian men - Khaled Abou el Fadl has defied centuries of established Islamic practise and teaching which had been based on solid textual sources. This is what I mean when I refer to his attempts to discard Islamic fiqh and speak out against those attempts.

Freedom Is Delicious. Je suis arrivée.Admins can edit posts and moderate comments. Authors can post.

Health Care Mandate a Republican Invention [Stolen from the Founding Fathers]

Health insurance mandate began as a Republican idea [piece-meal excerpts]
Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press via Boston Globe
28 Mar 2010
http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2010/03/28/health_insurance_mandate_began_as_a_republican_idea/
The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that has been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the GOP presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as “a personal responsibility principle’’ and Massachusetts’ newest GOP senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Republicans say Obama and the Democrats co-opted their original concept, minus a mechanism they proposed for controlling costs. Not long ago, many of them saw a national mandate as a free-market route to guarantee coverage for all Americans — the answer to liberal ambitions for a government-run entitlement like Medicare. In the early 1970s, President Nixon favored a mandate that employers provide insurance. In the 1990s, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, embraced an individual requirement.

“The idea of an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer was a Republican idea,’’ said health economist Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. In 1991, he published a paper that explained how a mandate could be combined with tax credits — two ideas that are now part of Obama’s law. Pauly’s paper was well-received — by the George H.W. Bush administration.

Romney’s success in Massachusetts with a bipartisan health plan that featured a mandate put the idea on the table for the 2008 presidential candidates. “In Massachusetts, [the requirement] helped us deal with the very real problem of uncompensated care,’’ Brown said.
[also "Republicans Hatched Idea for Obama's Health Insurance Mandate," Associated Press via Fox News, 27 Mar 2010, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/27/republicans-hatched-idea-obamas-health-insurance-mandate]
----------

Individual health insurance mandate started as a Republican idea [excerpts]
John Dorschner, Miami Herald
03 Feb 2011
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/23/1544321/individual-health-insurance-mandate.html
"The truth is this is a Republican idea,'' said Linda Quick, president of the South Florida Hospital and Healthcare Association. She said she first heard the concept of the "individual mandate'' in a Miami speech in the early 1990s by Sen. John McCain, a conservative Republican from Arizona, to counter the "Hillarycare'' the Clintons were proposing.

McCain did not embrace the concept during his 2008 election campaign, but other leading Republicans did, including Tommy Thompson, secretary of Health and Human Services under President George W. Bush. Seeking to deradicalize the idea during a symposium in Orlando in September 2008, Thompson said, "Just like people are required to have car insurance, they could be required to have health insurance.''

Among the other Republicans who had embraced the idea was Mitt Romney, who as governor of Massachusetts crafted a huge reform by requiring almost all citizens to have coverage. "Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate,'' Romney wrote in The Wall Street Journal in 2006. "But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian.''
----------

Republicans Spurn Once-Favored Health Mandate [excerpts]
Julie Rovner, NPR
15 Feb 2010
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123670612
In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. "It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time." Pauly, a conservative health economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, says it wasn't just his idea. Back in the late 1980s — when Democrats were pushing not just a requirement for employers to provide insurance, but also the possibility of a government-sponsored single-payer system — "a group of economists and health policy people, market-oriented, sat down and said, 'Let's see if we can come up with a health reform proposal that would preserve a role for markets but would also achieve universal coverage.' "

One reason the individual mandate appealed to conservatives is because it called for individual responsibility to address what economists call the "free-rider effect." "We called this responsible national health insurance," says Pauly. "There was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people shouldn't be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens."

So while President Clinton was pushing for employers to cover their workers in his 1993 bill, John Chafee of Rhode Island, along with 20 other GOP senators and Rep. Bill Thomas of California, introduced legislation that instead featured an individual mandate. Four of those Republican co-sponsors — Hatch, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Robert Bennett of Utah and Christopher Bond of Missouri — remain in the Senate today.

[T]he summary of the Republican bill from the Clinton era and the Democratic bills that passed the House and Senate over the past few months are startlingly alike. Beyond the requirement that everyone have insurance, both call for purchasing pools and standardized insurance plans. Both call for a ban on insurers denying coverage or raising premiums because a person has been sick in the past. Both even call for increased federal research into the effectiveness of medical treatments — something else that used to have strong bipartisan support, but that Republicans have been backing away from recently.
----------

Mitt Romney: No Apology for Individual Health Care Mandate [small excerpt]
George Stephanopolous, ABC News
01 Feb 2011
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011/02/mitt-romney-no-apology-for-individual-health-care-mandate.html
On the kick off to his "No Apology" book tour Mitt Romney is on message – refusing to apologize for the Massachusetts health care law that, like President Obama’s federal legislation, requires citizens to buy health insurance. “I’m not apologizing for it, I’m indicating that we went in one direction and there are other possible directions. I’d like to see states pursue their own ideas, see which ideas work best,” Romney told me.
----------


An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen
description from Wikipedia, as retrieved 03 Feb 2011 by Pink Muslimah:
"An Act for the relief of sick and disabled seamen was passed by the 5th Congress. It was signed by President John Adams on July 16, 1798. The Act authorized the deduction of twenty cents per month from the wages of seamen, for the sole purpose of funding medical care for sick and disabled seamen, as well as building additional hospitals for the treatment of seamen. ... On July 16, 1798 the bill was duly enrolled and transmitted to President John Adams, who signed it into law the same day." [URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_for_the_relief_of_sick_and_disabled_seamen]

The original legislation can be read in "A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875," p 605, as located at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=728 [retrieved 03 Feb 2011 by Pink Muslimah] A notice regarding the President having signed the bill into law can be found in "Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1797-1801
MONDAY, JULY 16, 1798," p 394, as at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(hj003238)), retrieved 03 Feb 2011 by Pink Muslimah. It is also available on Scribd at http://www.scribd.com/doc/29099806/Act-for-the-Relief-of-Sick-DisabledSeamen-July-1798, as retrieved 03 Feb 2011 by Pink Muslimah.

Rick Ungar of Forbes affirmed that this constituted the passage of the law constituted a "mandate that privately employed citizens be legally required to make payments to pay for health care services." ["Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798," Rick ungar, Forbes, 17 Jan 2011, http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798]

Freedom Is Delicious. Je suis arrivée.Admins can edit posts and moderate comments. Authors can post.

Abortion and Religious Diversity

In his "Introduction to Buddhist Ethics," Brian Peter Harvey informs the reader that the traditional view of Buddhism is that life begins at conception. In an interview with the New York Times ["New York Times Interview with the Dalai Lama," Claudia Dreifus, New York Times, 28 November 1993, archived at http://www.tibet.ca/en/newsroom/wtn/archive/old?y=1993&m=12&p=5_1], the Dalai Lama expressed a more moderate view.

In Shia Islam, a pregnancy is considered to have begun with implantation; and any abortion afterwards is impermissible except to save the life of the mother [Marriage and Morals in Islam, Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi, Ch 4] or, before the soul has entered (120 days), if the pregnancy would cause "difficulty [that] reaches a level that is usually unbearable and there is no way out for her except abortion" ["A Code of Practice for Muslims in the West," Dr. Abdul Hadi Al- Hakim, with the seal of Ayatullah Ali as-Sistani, Women's Issues, Questions and Answers, #488].

In Sunni Islam, life is considered to begin when the soul enters the fetus, at 120 days of gestation. Before such time, it is permissible to have an abortion only if the woman had been raped, her health were endangered, etc. Afterwards, it is impermissible except to save the life of the mother. ["When it is permitted to have an abortion," Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari, at http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=270&CATE=87]

Orthodox Judaism permits abortion only if the unborn baby presents a "direct threat to the life of the mother by carrying the fetus to term or through the act of childbirth." ["Abortion in Halacha," Daniel Eisenberg, MD, at http://www.medethics.org.il/articles/misc/Eisenberg/Abortion.asp] Some Rabbis have ruled that "there is no prohibition of abortion before forty days" ["Stem Cell Research in Jewish Law," By Daniel Eisenberg, MD, at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/stemcell.html]

Even Christian views about abortion are across the board.

St Thomas Aquinas, an early church father, held that abortion could be permitted for a fetus younger than 40 days of gestation (male) or 90 days (female) ["A Companion to Bioethics, Helga Kuhs and Peter Singer, Wiley-Blackwell, 1998, p 6, at http://books.google.com/books?id=6HZ2aOV2BSQC]. This generally stood as the position of the Church until 887, when Pope Stephen wrote in his Epistle to Archbishop of Mainz that "he who destroys what is conceived in the womb by abortion is a murderer" ["The Wisdom of the Popes: A Collection of Statements of the Popes Since Peter on a Variety of Religious and Social Issues," Thomas J. Craughwell, Macmillan, 1957, p 168, at http://books.google.com/books?id=qqEAYmLkP9wC].

The Southern Baptist Convention used to "call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother" ["Resolution On Abortion," June 1971, at http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=13] However, nowadays the SBC works towards "the day when the act of abortion will be...illegal" ["On Thirty Years Of Roe V. Wade," June 2003, at http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=1130] The SBC considers that life begins "from the moment of conception" [ibid].

On the other hand, the Episcopal Church in the United States of America has expressed "unequivocal opposition to any legislation abridging a woman’s right to make an informed decision about the termination of pregnancy," even while adopting the position that abortion "should be used only in extreme situations." ["Episcopalians show support for reproductive freedom at march," Matthew Davies and Maureen Shea, Episcopal News Service, 27 Apr 2004, at http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_37993_ENG_HTM.htm]

In Wicca, abortion is treated as a very personal and indivudual choice: "consult one's own soul and that which has been uncovered of that soul during the path of initiation into the mysteries of the Wicca" [A Wiccan Bible: Exploring the Mysteries of the Craft from Birth to Summerland," A J Drew, Career Press, 2003, p 62, at http://books.google.com/books?id=vCVatWUynY8C]. However, it is guided by certain principles. As A J Drew writes in the previously quoted book, "[H]aving some moral authority other than one's self is in fact needed. Our actions do have consequences. ... [D]o not think that [abortion] has no consequences, and do not think that the issue of having or not having an abortion is not a matter of morality." [ibid, p 62] When discussing abortion, many Wiccans refer to the "eight words" - the final words of the Wiccan Rede: "If it harm none, do what ye will" [as found in "Advanced Wiccan Spirituality: Revitalising the Roots and Foundations," Kevin Saunders, p 6, Green Magic, 2004, at http://books.google.com/books?id=l6WrSSJKTUkC]

Living as we do in a democracy which is not based on any religion, nor which promotes the views of one religion over another, what benefit is it to us to pick a belief one from one religion, sect, or denomination and use it as a basis for any legislation?


Freedom Is Delicious. Je suis arrivée.Admins can edit posts and moderate comments. Authors can post.

Pres Obama's "Violence" in Context

Great to know that so many are getting their "facts" from the Free Republic website. (An accidentally reversed quotation mark which appeared after "ass to kick" is replicated between their posts and http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2643534/posts.)


Fight For It
Debunking The ‘Obama Did It Too’ Meme – Context Matters
Homebrewed Theology
13 Jan 2010
http://homebrewedtheology.com/debunking-the-obama-did-it-too-meme-context-matters.php
[Video linked to quote. I'm sorry. I cannot hear any audio, so that's the best that I could do. I cannot find a reference to this quote in the MSM or an academically verifiable reference.]


We Bring a Gun
Rendell drinking the Kool-Aid
Josh Drobnyk, The Morning Call
16 Jun 2008
http://blogs.mcall.com/penn_ave/2008/06/rendell-drinkin.html
"They're going to try to scare people. They're going to try to say that 'that Obama is a scary guy,'" -"Don't give in!" - "I won't but that sounded pretty scary. You're a tough guy. If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I've seen Eagles fans."
[Obama attended a fundraiser June 13, 2008, at the Sheraton in downtown Philadelphia. Wall Street Journal reporter Amy Chozick provided a "pool report." This is a report of an event provided to all in the media by the one reporter allowed to cover it, when circumstances will not allow for the entire press corps to cover it directly. -FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org/2011/01/obama-guns-and-the-untouchables]

Obama: 'If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun'
Wall Street Journal
14 Jun 2008
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/14/obama-if-they-bring-a-knife-to-the-fight-we-bring-a-gun/
Obama made the comment in the context of warning donors that the general election campaign against McCain could get ugly. "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I've seen Eagles fans."
Obama: 'We Bring a Gun'
New York Times
14 Jun 2008
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/obama-we-bring-a-gun/
Channeling the mob drama, "The Untouchables," Mr. Obama said in reference to the general election rumble with the Republicans: "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."


Get in Their Face
Obama Mocks McCain in Nevada Stops
Associated Press via KLAS 8 News Now (CBS outlet)
17 Sept 2008
http://www.8newsnow.com/story/8999386/obama-mocks-mccain-in-nevada-stops?nav=168XYT17&redirected=true
"Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he's president he'll take on -- and I quote -- 'the old boys network in Washington.' I'm not making this up. This is somebody who's been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he's the one who's going to take on the old boys network. The old boys network. In the McCain campaign that's called a staff meeting. Come on."

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face. And if they tell you that, 'Well, we're not sure where he stands on guns.' I want you to say, 'He believes in the Second Amendment.' If they tell you, 'Well, he's going to raise your taxes,' you say, 'No, he's not, he's going lower them.' You are my ambassadors. You guys are the ones who can make the case."


I'm Angry
Obama Remarks on AIG
In Obama's Words, Washington Post
18 Mar 2009
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/obama-speeches/speech/55/
QUESTION: Mr. President, a new round of bonuses from these contracts are coming out. What would you say to the American public to quell the anger because people are angry about this new round that's coming out? There's more bonuses are said to be coming for AIG executives.

OBAMA: Well, I don't want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry. I'm angry. What I want us to do, though, is channel our anger in a constructive way. And the most important thing we can do right now is stabilize the financial system, get credit flowing again to businesses and consumers, and make sure that we change how these businesses operate so that they don't put us in a situation in which, when things go bad, the taxpayers have to foot the bill and when things go good, folks are getting not just $6 million bonuses but $30 million or $40 million bonuses.


Hit Back Twice as Hard
White House to Democrats: 'Punch back twice as hard'
Carrie Budoff Brown, Politico
06 Aug 2009
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25891.html
They showed video clips of the confrontational town halls that have dominated the media coverage, and told senators to do more prep work than usual for their public meetings by making sure their own supporters turn out, senators and aides said.
...
"If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard," [deputy chief of staff Jim] Messina said, according to an official who attended the meeting [between top White House aides and Senate Democrats].
[Pink Note: I couldn't find a single quote from Obama containing the phrase "twice as hard," much less aimed at the SEIU, as quoted by a MSM or other academically verificable source.]


First thoughts: Kicking 'ass'
First Read, MSNBC
08 Jan 2010
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/06/08/4479754-first-thoughts-kicking-ass
[NBC's Matt] Lauer asked Obama about the critique that this isn't the time for cool and calm; it's a time to "kick some butt." ... "I'm gonna push back hard on this. Because I think that this is just an idea that got in folks' heads and the media's run with it. I was down there a month ago, before most of these talking heads were even paying attention to the Gulf. A month ago, I was meeting with fishermen down there, standing in the rain talking about what a potential crisis this could be. And I don't sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially had the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick. Right? So, you know, this is not theater."

Also in the interview, Obama suggested he would have fired BP head Tony Hayward. "He wouldn't be working for me after any of those [controversial] statements," which Lauer read to Obama.


Hand-to-Hand Combat
GOP takeover of Congress would mean 'hand-to-hand combat,' Obama warns
Michael A. Memoli, Tribune Washington Bureau
07 Oct 2010
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/07/news/la-pn-obama-base-20101008
"They are fired up. They are mobilized. They see an opportunity to take back the House, maybe take back the Senate. If they're successful in doing that, they've already said they're going to go back to the same policies that were in place during the Bush administration. That means that we are going to have just hand-to-hand combat up here on Capitol Hill."


We're Gonna Punish Our Enemies
Transcript of President Barack Obama with Univision
Los Angeles Times
25 Oct 2010
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/10/transcript-of-president-barack-obama-with-univision.html
Well, here's what we're gonna do. We're gonna see how well we do in this election and I think a lot of it is gonna depend on whether we still have some support not only from Democrats, but also Republicans, but they're gonna be paying attention to this election. And if Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, we're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us, if they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's gonna be harder and that's why I think it's so important that people focus on voting on November 2.
Obama seeks to blunt Republican attack over comment
Steve Holland, Jackie Frank, Reuters
01 Nov 2010
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69929420101101
Obama, in an interview with talk radio host Michael Baisden, said, "I probably should have used the word 'opponents' instead of enemies."


Itching for a Fight
Obama vows to fight Republicans -- next year
David Jackson, USA Today
13 Dec 2010
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/12/obama-vows-to-fight-republicans----next-year/1
"I will be happy to see the Republicans test whether or not I'm itching for a fight on a whole range of issues. I suspect they will find I am. And I think the American people will be on my side on a whole bunch of these fights."

tax cuts:
"We are going to go right back at Republicans in showing why the things that they wanted in this compromise don't make sense. When they expire in two years, I will fight to end them. Just as I suspect the Republican Party may fight to end the middle-class tax cuts that I've championed and that they've opposed."

deficit:
"Republicans are going to have to explain to the American people over the next two years how making those tax cuts for the high end permanent squares with their stated desire to start reducing deficits and debt."

Freedom Is Delicious. Je suis arrivée.Admins can edit posts and moderate comments. Authors can post.

Stop Pretending

We have got to stop pretending.

We have got to stop pretending that racism is dead. We might have freed the slaves, and ended segregation, and adopted the Civil Rights Bill; and we might have elected ourselves an Afro-Descended president. None of that, however, means that our nation is free of racism. Even in 1968, as we were knocking on the door of the 1970's, Rev Martin Luther King, Jr proclaimed, "America is still a racist country." ["The Other America," MLK at Grosse Pointe High School, 14 Mar 1968, http://www.gphistorical.org/mlk/mlkspeech/mlk-gp-speech.pdf]

We love to pretend that we are not racist. But how many of us refer to Welfare Queens? How many of us refuse to drink from public fountains because "you don't know who used it before you"? How many of us have parroted off that "slavery was ended a long time ago, so they should get over it"? How many of us cross the street if we find that we are approaching a person of colour, or draw our purses closer to ourselves? How many of us pretend that the era of Affirmative Action is over, and that now is the time for African-Americans and other minorities to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps"? How many of us have insisted that we have the right to spew nasty, offensive filth because "rappers do it, too"? How many of us complain about "the race card" and demand that we be "allowed to make a caucus for white people, too"?

Rev King also saw these euphemisms for the racism that they were. He also spoke of white people in positions of power "saying to the black man that he must lift himself by his own bootstraps." And he recognised it for the spiteful hypocrisy that it was, and still is today. Here is more of his speech from March 14, 1968 at Grosse Pointe High School.

"To have freed the negro from slavery without doing anything to get him started in life on a sound economic footing, it was almost like freeing a man who had been in prison many years and you had discovered that he was unjustly convicted of, that he was innocent of the crime for which he was convicted and you go up to him and say now you're free, but you don't give him any bus fare to get to town or you don't give him any money to buy some clothes to put on his back or to get started in life again. Every code of jurisprudence would rise up against it. This is the very thing that happened to the black man in America. And then when we look at it even deeper than this, it becomes more ironic. We're reaping the harvest of this failure today. While America refused to do anything for the black man at that point, during that very period, the nation, through an act of Congress, was giving away millions of acres of land in the west and the mid-west, which meant that it was willing to under gird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor. Not only did they give the land, they built land grant colleges for them to learn how to farm. Not only that it provided county agents to further their expertise in farming and went beyond this and came to the point of providing low interest rates for these persons so that they could mechanize their farms, and today many of these persons are being paid millions of dollars a year in federal subsidies not to farm and these are so often the very people saying to the black man that he must lift himself by his own bootstraps. I can never think ... Senator Eastland, incidentally, who says this all the time gets a hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars a year, not to farm on various areas of his plantation down in Mississippi. And yet he feels that we must do everything for ourselves. Well that appears to me to be a kind of socialism for the rich and rugged hard individualistic capitalism for the poor."

This speech wasn't some kind of epiphany for Rev Martin Luther King, Jr. As early as 1957, he associated the situation of people of colour in the United States with economic deprivation. In his speech, "The Birth of a New Nation," Rev King made the connection between the economic exploitation of Africans by whites and the institution of slavery:

"The first European settlers came in there about 1444, the Portuguese, and they started legitimate trade with the people in the Gold Coast; they started dealing with them with their gold, and in turn they gave them guns and ammunition and gunpowder and that type of thing. Well, pretty soon America was discovered a few years later in the fourteen hundreds, and then the British West Indies. And all of these growing discoveries brought about the slave trade. ... And all of these nations competed with each other to win the power of the Gold Coast so that they could exploit these people for commercial reasons and sell them into slavery."
["The Birth of a New Nation," 07 Apr 1957, Dexter Ave Baptist Church, http://www.mlkonline.net/nation.html]

Later in the same speech, he placed economic justice on the same level as peace and the end to discrimination, using the word "exploitation." He said, "You must remember that the tensionless period that we like to think of was the period when the Negro was complacently adjusted to segregation, discrimination, insult, and exploitation," and then contrasted that exploitation with "a positive, lasting peace which is the presence of brotherhood and justice" in the very next sentence.

In 1965, Rev Martin Luther King, Jr made the connection between racism and economic disenfranchisement clear when he accused racists of feeding Jim Crow to poor whites to numb them to the reality of their own financial distress, while at the same time keeping the black man in his proverbial place.

"You see, it was a simple thing to keep the poor white masses working for near-starvation wages in the years that followed the Civil War. Why, if the poor white plantation or mill worker became dissatisfied with his low wages, the plantation or mill owner would merely threaten to fire him and hire former Negro slaves and pay him even less. Thus, the southern wage level was kept almost unbearably low.

Towards the end of the Reconstruction era, something very significant happened. That is what was known as the Populist Movement. The leaders of this movement began awakening the poor white masses and the former Negro slaves to the fact that they were being fleeced by the emerging Bourbon interests. Not only that, but they began uniting the Negro and white masses into a voting bloc that threatened to drive the Bourbon interests from the command posts of political power in the South. To meet this threat, the southern aristocracy began immediately to engineer this development of a segregated society."

In this way, argued Rev King, rich whites were able to maintain their own wealth and power, increasing it, even, by convincing disenfranchised white people that their situation was not so very bad - blacks had to use substandard facilities and weren't allowed into more privileged white spaces, so their hunger, their nakedness, their poverty was still a step above the position of the black man.

But we are still pretending. We are still insisting that these are modern times, and that the slavery, segregation, and discrimination with which we plagued African-Americans for the first three centuries of America's history have ended now that we have abolished slavery, killed Jim Crow, and elected Barack Obama as President of the United States. We try to convince each other that no-one really needs outside assistance anymore, and that the only problem that people have in dragging themselves out of poverty, through college, and into a well-paying job is sheer laziness.

The problem is that this is all a myth. Yes, we have enacted laws which are intended to protect minorities and the disenfranchised; and African-Americans have indeed made tremendous strides in our country. However, events as recent as the bursting of the housing bubble should have opened our eyes.

Last year, an eye-opening headline screamed across the Los Angeles Times: "NAACP suits claim African Americans were targeted for subprime mortgages." And this wasn't so much litigation-happy fluff, either. The NAACP wasn't after money, but rather transparency in the financial sector. E Scott Reckard, the author of the article, pointed out that "The NAACP suits result from studies by the government and advocacy groups concluding that blacks are more likely to wind up with higher-cost loans than whites, even when they have similar income, assets and credit scores." This was based on a report from the Center for Responsible Lending, which "found that African Americans were 31% to 34% more likely to receive a higher-rate loan than whites." Even on standard loans, "blacks on average pay nearly 1.3 percentage points more in interest." ["NAACP suits claim African Americans were targeted for subprime mortgages," E Scott Reckard, Los Angeles Times, 14 Mar 2009, at http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/14/business/fi-black-housing14]

If one prefers cold, hard numbers, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, which represents 640 nonprofit organizations, found that 29% of African-Americans who purchased home mortgages in 2004 got high-cost loans. This is compared to just 10% of whites. ["Disparities Found in Sub-Prime Lending," Kirstin Downey, Washington Post, 11 Apr 2005, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42432-2005Apr10.html]

According to articles in other newspapers, this wasn't some freak accident in which African-Americans flocked themselves towards bad loans. USA Today reported, "Independent analyses and government investigations indicate that minority borrowers are steered to higher-cost loans even when they qualify for cheaper products." ["Minorities hit hard by rising costs of subprime loans," Sue Kirchhoff and Judy Keen, USA Today, 25 Apr 2007, at http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2007-04-25-subprime-minorities-usat_N.htm]

"The Fed two years ago said its analysis of 2004 data indicated that 200 lenders might be making too many high-cost loans to minorities who might be able to qualify for better deals; 35 of those lenders are overseen by the central bank. The 2005 data raised red flags about 270 lenders, 45 under Fed oversight. It conducted follow-up examinations and has referred one lender to the Justice Department."

The article also stated that according to Federal Reserve data, the result was that 55% of African-Americans ended up with higher-cost loans, as compared to 17% of whites. Another study cited in the USA Today article found that banks placed fewer of their branches in minority areas.

I don't think that this was an accident. Rather, it seems to me part of a pattern of systematic discrimination against African-Americans in all sectors of American society. Even housing discrimination is not new. While the Fair Housing Act, designed to protect African-Americans from being denied housing loans, was enacted in 1968, studies from as recent as 1998 and 2002 show that banks continue to refuse loans to African-Americans.

'Lending institutions treat black mortgage applicants differently when buying homes in white neighborhoods than when buying homes in black neighborhoods." ["Exploring the Neighborhood Contingency of Race Discrimination in Mortgage Lending in Columbus, Ohio," Stephen R. Holloway, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Volume 88, Issue 2 June 1998, pages 252 - 276]

"Black tracts receive fewer loans after accounting for firm density, firm size, industrial mix, neighborhood income, and the credit quality of local firms." ["Redlining Redux: Black Neighborhoods, Black-Owned Firms, and the Regulatory Cold Shoulder," Dan Immergluck, Urban Affairs Review, Grand Valley State University, Sept 2002, vol. 38, no. 1, pp 22-41]

Of course, home ownership can only be possible if one has a job to support loan payments. This is a practical impossibility for those who suffer regular employment discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides legal protection from overt cases of discrimination, but it is still possible to refuse employment to an African-American - without attributing that decision to race.

Two studies from 1985 found that "college-educated African Americans have more difficulty than their Caucasian counterparts in securing employment." [Beauchamp, T.L. & Bowie, N.E. (1993). Ethical Theory and Business, 4th ed. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. as in "African Americans and the Workplace: Overview of Persistent Discrimination," William D. Wharton, Dr. Felix O. Chima, http://www.lfuchrc.org/publications/publications/article.pdf]

Another study, published in 1991, showed that regardless of level of qualification or dress style, "a Caucasian applicant was able to submit an application in 20 percent of the cases when an African American was not." This study also revealed that the discrimination worsened in accordance with the status of the job. [Turner, M.A., Fix, M. & Struyk, R.J. (1991). Hiring discrimination against Black men. The Urban Institute Policy and Research Report, Summer: 4-5. as in "African Americans and the Workplace: Overview of Persistent Discrimination," William D. Wharton, Dr. Felix O. Chima, http://www.lfuchrc.org/publications/publications/article.pdf]

A 1994 study entitled "Measuring employment discrimination through controlled experiments," by Marc Bendick, Charles W. Jackson and Victor A. Reinoso had similar findings. It was published in "The Review of Black Political Economy," Vol 23, No 1, pp 25-48, 22 Jun 1994.

Yet another study, this one based on names on applications, reported that "White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews." ["Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination," Marianne Bertrand, Sendhil Millainathan, The Journal of Intergroup Relations, Spring 1999] These findings spanned all classes of employer, regardless of the kind of job pursued, the size of the business, or the field of industry with which the business dealt: "Differential treatment by race still appears to be prominent in the US labor market."

Of course, without a decent education, what hope is there of finding a good job? This is another of the many struggles which face African-Americans today in the United States. Just last year, US Secretary of State Arne Duncan tied unjust funding of public education to the natural imbalance that lies with state and local taxes. "Over 40 states have faced legal challenges to their school funding system because they are so unfair," said Duncan. ["Secretary Arne Duncan's Remarks at the National Urban League Centennial Conference," US Department of Education, 27 Jul 2010, at http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/secretary-arne-duncans-remarks-national-urban-league-centennial-conference] He agrees with me that this is a remnant of the systematic discrimination against African-Americans: "And we will work hard to eradicate the vestiges of segregation that still harm African-American students."

Secretary Duncan isn't just blowing hot air. In a report called "The Return To Separate And Unequal Metropolitan Milwaukee School Funding Through a Racial Lens" (A Rethinking Schools Report, 2001, http://www.rethinkingschools.org/static/special_reports/prrac/pracexec.pdf), authors Bob Peterson, Kathy Swope, and Barbara Miner revealed that even while the number of African-American students enrolled at schools in the Milwaukee Public School system increased, per-pupil funding dropped, even compared to funding in white school districts.

Another study found a systemic bias against schools headed by African-American superintendents: "Ninety-three high-poverty rural school districts headed by African-American superintendents received almost $8.2 million less Title I funding in school year 2008-09 than they would have received if the formula for distributing these funds did not contain a provision that favors large districts over small districts." ["Districts Headed by African-American Superintendents Lose Funding to Number-Weighting, 26 Aug 2010, at http://www.ruraledu.org/articles.php?id=2536]

How dare we insist that African-Americans "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps" when they continue to face such pervasive systematic discriminations in all sectors of American life, from public education to employment to housing? How blind can we be to ignore the fact that the same racism which Rev Martin Luther King, Jr saw in the 1950's and 1960's remains in our country today? Why do we continue to pretend that nothing is wrong, even while we follow such claims with blatantly racist statements such as "They're just being lazy," or "If they can't keep up with the rest of the class, just don't pass them"?

Nearly forty years after "I Have a Dream," most of us choose to dream that we are a post-racial utopia, rather than face the fact that to this day, African-Americans need legislative protections, both reactive and proactive, in order to achieve the same American Dream that falls naturally into the lap of the white man.

Wake up, America, and stop pretending.



Freedom Is Delicious. Je suis arrivée.Admins can edit posts and moderate comments. Authors can post.

Snyder's Shared Sacrifice

See also my notes "Michigan's Tax Burden," "Michigan Income, Cost of Living," and "[Lack of] Impact of Unemployment Benefits on Joblessness" for other fact-gathering projects of mine related to our economic situation.

Michigan is facing a $2 billion budget shortfall this year (1). Governor Rick Snyder's plans to deal with that deficit seem to include cutting taxes (2) and increasing the pay for his top staffers (3). Our state House Republicans have added deregulation to the agenda (4); and Mr Snyder and House Republicans have mentioned other cuts.

Forbes already has numbers on some of the Republican plans. Repealing the Michigan Business Tax will cost us $500 million, and the scheduled reduction in income taxes will cost another $160 million (5).

The Detroit News has reported the salaries of Snyder administration staff. John Nixon, who will take over two departments under the auspices of the Department of Technology, Management and Budget will receive $250,000. Economic Development Director Michael Finney will also receive $250,000. (6)

Snyder Chief of Staff Dennis Muchmore will be paid $171,000. Senior Advisor Dick Posthumus will receive $170,000. The Deputy Chief of Staff will receive $145,000; and The Communications Director post is now $140,000, as are Director of Strategy and Legal Counsel. (6)

Mr Snyder's administrative staff are costing us taxpayers more than $1,400,000.

This doesn't sound like the "shared sacrifice" that Governor Rick Snyder told us our "solution" would "ask for" (7). There will be sacrifices, though, at this altar of free market solutions.

Republicans in Michigan's House of Representatives plan to eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit. This tax credit assists low-income families with children. They figure that that would be a wonderful way to save $300 million (8). Of course, that leaves $360 million worth of lost tax revenue to make up somehow. It doesn't quite begin to cover that gaping $2 billion hole in the state's budget, either. It is a 0.15% start, though.

New Speaker of the House Jase Bolger has called for limits on welfare: recipients would be booted from the system after four years (9). House Republicans also plan to cut funding to schools. Regarding those cuts, Rep. Chuck Moss, R-Birmingham, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, stated, "When we had the money we were generous, but people don't have the money now" (10).

Poor families and schoolchildren aren't the only ones who will be sharing the sacrifice, though. Governor Snyder pointed to cuts in the salaries of our public sector employees as a potential way to save our failing budget, asking, "What's comparable with the private sector, and what's financially affordable?" (11)

Answers do exist to Mr Snyder's first question. According to a report in USA Today last March, public sector employees of state governments receive salaries of $47,231. That's approximately 5% less than what a person would earn in a comparable job in the private sector (12). A more regional study estimates the gap to be slightly higher: even considering retirement, health, and other benefits, a state employee's compensation is 6.8% less than a comparable salary in the private sector, according to the study commissioned by the Center for State and Local Government Excellence and the National Institute for Retirement Security (13).

Here in Michigan, public employees have already been making concessions: $750 million worth of them since 2003. Since 2000, Michigan's state employee workforce has been cut by 15% (14). Enacting the Mackinac Center's proposed health care cuts to the mix would add another $106 million in concessions to that figure (15).

From Gov Snyder's $660 million in spending from business and income tax cuts, $254 would remain after the Mackinac Center cuts. The $2 billion budget deficit would also remain.

Not only do none of these proposed cuts make a significant dent in the deficit, they do not "share the sacrifice." It seems that only the working class and the poor are expected to cut back, while big business and the wealthy can breathe easy.

SOURCES
1. "Economy stabilizes, but Mich. budget woes continue," Tim Martin, Associated Press, via Forbes, 14 Jan 2011, at http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/01/14/general-mi-revenue-conference-michigan_8257714.html

2. "Economy stabilizes, but Mich. budget woes continue," Tim Martin, Associated Press, via Forbes, 14 Jan 2011, at http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/01/14/general-mi-revenue-conference-michigan_8257714.html

3. "Snyder's officials paid top salaries," Paul Egan, Detroit News, 15 Jan 2011, at http://detnews.com/article/20110115/POLITICS02/101150339/Snyder’s-officials-paid-top-salaries#ixzz1B70wwyTX

4. "GOP warns: Painful cuts coming to fix state deficit," Chris Christoff, Detroit Free Press, 13 Jan 2011, at http://www.freep.com/article/20110113/NEWS15/110113036/GOP-warns-Painful-cuts-coming-to-fix-state-deficit

5. "Economy stabilizes, but Mich. budget woes continue," Tim Martin, Associated Press, via Forbes, 14 Jan 2011, at http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/01/14/general-mi-revenue-conference-michigan_8257714.html

6. "Snyder's officials paid top salaries," Paul Egan, Detroit News, 15 Jan 2011, at http://detnews.com/article/20110115/POLITICS02/101150339/Snyder’s-officials-paid-top-salaries#ixzz1B70wwyTX

7. "WASHINGTON POST: Public employee compensation cuts are necessary, Rick Snyder tells Republican governors," Nathan Bomey, AnnArbor.com Staff, Nov 18, 2010, at http://www.annarbor.com/business-review/public-employee-compensation-cuts-are-necessary-rick-snyder-tells-republican-governors

8. "Economy stabilizes, but Mich. budget woes continue," Tim Martin, Associated Press, via Forbes, 14 Jan 2011, at http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/01/14/general-mi-revenue-conference-michigan_8257714.html

9. "Jase Bolger: State must face responsibilities," Barrett Newkirk, Battle Creek Enquirer, 13 Jan 2011, at http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/article/20110113/NEWS01/101130310/Jase-Bolger-State-must-face-responsibilities

10. "GOP warns: Painful cuts coming to fix state deficit," Chris Christoff, Detroit Free Press, 13 Jan 2011, at http://www.freep.com/article/20110113/NEWS15/110113036/GOP-warns-Painful-cuts-coming-to-fix-state-deficit

11. "For 3 Midwest governors, public employee compensation takes center stage," Dan Balz, Washington Post, 18 Jan 2011, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/18/AR2010111804180.html

12. "Federal pay ahead of private industry," Dennis Cauchon, USA Today, 08 Mar 2010, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm
State government employees had an average salary of $47,231 in 2008, about 5% less than comparable jobs in the private sector.

13. "Study: State and local government workers underpaid," William Petroski, Des Moines Register, 28 Apr 2010, at http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2010/04/28/study-state-and-local-government-workers-underpaid

14. "Public worker costs likely target in Snyder speech," Kathy Barks Hoffman, Associated Press, via USA Today, 15 Jan 2011, at http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=hometownlife&sParam=35539243.story

15. "Public worker costs likely target in Snyder speech," Kathy Barks Hoffman, Associated Press, via USA Today, 15 Jan 2011, at http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=hometownlife&sParam=35539243.story
Freedom Is Delicious. Je suis arrivée.Admins can edit posts and moderate comments. Authors can post.

Restricting the Availablility of Guns Reduces Homicides and the Severity of Crimes

Gun crime in the UK is relatively low, especially as compared to the US. "A Home Office study published in 2007 reported that gun crime in England & Wales remains a relatively rare event. Firearms (including air guns) were used in 21,521 recorded crimes. It said that injury caused during a firearm offence was rare with less than 3% resulting in a serious or fatal injury." ["Home Office: Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2005/2006," p 32 at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf] "In 2008 The Independent reported that there were 42 gun-related deaths in Great Britain, a 20-year low." ["Britain records 18% fall in gun deaths," Nigel Moris, The Independent, 08 Jan 2009, at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/britain-records-18-fall-in-gun-deaths-1232069.html]

Our rate of homicides by firearm here in the US vastly outrank the rate in England. See the following:
The Seventh United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (1998 - 2000)
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/Seventh-United-Nations-Survey-on-Crime-Trends-and-the-Operations-of-Criminal-Justice-Systems.html
Firearm homicide rate per 100,000 pop
US: 3.97
England & WaleS: 0.12

In fact, guns worsen the outcome of criminal activity. In chapter three of his book, "Gun Violence: The Real Costs," Philip Cook demonstrates that the presence of guns in a crime increases the cheances that an injury or death will take place. A 1998 study found that "The rate of firearm deaths in the United States (14.24 per 100,000) exceeds that of its economic counterparts (1.76) eightfold." ["Firearm-related deaths in the United States and 35 other high- and upper-middle-income countries, EG Kurg, KE Powell, LL Dahlberg, Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9602401]

The New York Times reports on a similar study - this one from the University of Pennsylvania in 2009, which "estimated that people in possession of a gun at the time of an assault were 4.5 times more likely to be shot during the assault than someone in a comparable situation without a gun." ["How Many Deaths Are Enough?," Bob Herbert, New York Times, 17 Jan 2011, at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/opinion/18herbert.html?_r=1] NYT quoted one of the researchers who produced the study as saying, "On average, guns did not seem to protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses can and do occur, the findings of this study do not support the perception that such successes are likely."

After the Brady Law of 1993, the rate of murders by handgun dropped precipitously: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg

Neither are the gun laws unpopular in England. "According to recent multinational Gallup polling in the United States, Britain, and Canada, roughly 8 in 10 British adults (79%) feel gun laws should be stricter."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/16990/britons-aim-tougher-gun-laws.aspx

The famous myth that victims can save themselves by using guns is not borne out by the evidence. "Victims used firearms in 0.18% of all crimes recorded by the survey and in 0.83% of violent offenses. Firearm self-defense is rare compared with gun crimes." ["The incidence of defensive firearm use by US crime victims, 1987 through 1990," D McDowall and B Wiersema, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland, at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615397/?tool=pmcentrez]

Freedom Is Delicious. Je suis arrivée.Admins can edit posts and moderate comments. Authors can post.