Guns to Protect us from Sharia
Silly things members of Congress say (plus musings on authoritarianism).
Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX): “We’ve got some people who think Sharia Law should be the law of the land, forget the Constitution. But the guns are there… to make sure all of the rest of the Amendments are followed” (source).
Even if we set aside the formulation that an armed population is a Sharia-less population, these kinds of statements frustrate me for one simple reason: the basic premise is flawed beyond all measure. Such assertions start from the premise that it is possible that some miniscule minority could somehow have the power to nearly take over segments of the government against near unanimity and that the only way to stop them would be via an armed insurrection.
Call me crazy, but I am pretty sure that we can block any attempt whatsoever to impose Sharia law (or any other bogeyman one can conjure) via application of the rights in the First Amendment combined with, you know, not voting for people who want to impose Sharia law on all of us (or whatever else may be the case).
Indeed, the ability of a miniscule minority to impose an utterly foreign ideology on a population is extremely hard to do. As I have attempted to explain before in similar posts, authoritarian governments require some substantial amount of popular support to be successful. This is not to say they have to have majority support, but they do need support of key sectors (e.g., portions of the military, the wealthy, the clerical class, labor, etc.). There is no historical example where some tiny, scary segment of the population just takes over everything—especially not in the context of healthy, functioning political order.*
As such, all of these bizarre fantasies about armed patriots repelling some surprise tyranny are utter nonsense.**
As a side note for consideration, I would note that if one looks at the actions of government in the United State that have authoritarian elements, they have substantial public support (often a super-majority). Moreover, that support comes often from the types of patriots that Gohmert thinks will protect us from Sharia. For example: the immigration laws in Arizona and Alabama, as originally written, allowed police to ask for residency papers and to retain persons based not on crimes committed, but most for being, if I may deploy some colloquial language: being kinda of foreigny.*** Indeed, support for a variety of policies over the last decade-plus, including the arrest and detention of American citizens without trial (for example), warrantless wiretaps, “enhanced interrogations,” the usage of drones against America citizens suspected of being terrorists,**** and so forth have been sufficiently high to allow to take place (not to mention the way we treat prisoners). These are all more serious threats to civil liberties, and therefore to the foundations of democratic government, than is some phantom Sharia law imposition. Even things that we gripe about, but perhaps do not “support” (such as the way TSA agents treat us at airports) are more of a material threat to our liberties than is Sharia law.
*And regardless of whatever one might like to say about political dysfunction in Washington, DC at the moment, the US remains a functional, institutionalized, and developed country.
Also, repeat after me: Weimer Germany was not a functional, institutionalized, and developed country (let alone a healthy democracy—elections alone do not a healthy democracy make). And, for that matter, the presence of pro-Nazi sentiment in Weimar Germany was rather substantially higher than support for Sharia law in the US—waaaaay higher.
**Wolverines!!
***For example:
- Alabama Police Arrest Mercedes Executive for not Having Proper ID
- Alabama Arrests Another Foreign Auto Executive
- More Effects of Alabama’s Immigration Law
- The Extremeness of Immigration Politics in Alabama
And before someone says it: I am not saying that enforcing immigration laws means equates to being authoritarian. I am saying that passing laws that empower state functionaries (e.g, police, school officials) to start harassing persons for reasons unconnected to evidence of illegality (in this case mostly skin color, accents, or spelling of last names).
****From the linked story: “In that same poll, respondents were asked whether they supported using drones to target American citizens who are suspected terrorists, the question that stands at the heart of the recent flare-up in Congress over the practice. Two thirds of people in the survey said they approved of doing so.”
No comment. It would be unsporting to even discuss the bagful of stupid. Like shooting fish in a barrel.
Is it even worth noting that many of the people who fear the phantom of Sharia are often vocal supporters of giving Christian beliefs the force of law? And they do so with no trace of irony?
The first mistake is taking anything Louie Gohmert says seriously.
@Doug Mataconis: Or Michele Bachmann or Herman Caine or any of a number of others; but, the use of Sharia threats can be as easily used to impose authoritarian laws as the use of immigration threats, drug threats or terrorism threats. Say something enough in the right places the more true it sounds.
BWAAAHAAHAAHAAAA…..
Steven, you are too kind. I mean there is a wealth of examples to support your assertion: Somalia, Afghanistan, Sudan, etc.
@Alex Knapp: Yeah, a decent portion of the people who completely panic regarding Sharia law would accept it with a different name, a ban on woman-initiated divorce and a pork waiver.
Good analysis of authoritarianism can be found here:
Bob Altemeyer’s – The Authoritarians Introduction
Download the book here Warning, 1.35 Mb PDF
Well, up until January 2009, that was the claim by the Left as to what happened in America around the turn of the century.
But no worries about the imposition of Sharia law. As we see in Britain, you have to have a weak, feminized government afraid to stand up for what makes the country great. And then, it only gets imposed in small sections with high extremist populations.
Plus, in America, if you try to ban pork, if you try to ban bacon, bbq, carnitas, etc., there won’t be an uprising but rather a holy war. Plus, we can’t keep the women out of tube tops, I sure don’t see how they’ll ever get them under a burka. And stoning women? For infidelity? Not in the South at least. As any boy knows, you throw rocks at a Southern girl, she’ll throw it back harder and more accurately.
o/~ How do you solve a problem like Sharia? How do you get the guns to keep it down…. o/~
We have enough problems with authoritarianism and tyranny in America (namely from what our good old lilly-white citizens are willing to allow) without those same people making up enemies that don’t threaten us.
I do belive pointing to a Scary Muslim is simply a tactic for distracting and frightening Americans into standing by as our government erodes Constitutional liberties in the name of Keeping Us Safe.
@Doug Mataconis: @Argon: On one level, I agree. The problem is that Gohmert, Bachmann, etc. are elected members of the US Congress. This makes this worthy of refutation because they clearly are supported, to one degree or another, by a large number of our fellow Americans.
I also think that some consideration about exactly how authoritarian tendency actually do take root and grow are worth considering.
@JKB:
Because, of course, the UK is now run by the Taliban West?
@Alex Knapp: Indeed.
@Steven L. Taylor: JKB is drunk again, pay her no mind.
@JKB: “And stoning women? For infidelity? Not in the South at least. As any boy knows, you throw rocks at a Southern girl, she’ll throw it back harder and more accurately. ”
Right. And when they’re raped, we’ll make sure that the rapists go free, at least if the rape happens on a reservation, because to a Republican, that’s freedom. And if they get pregnant, we’ll rape them again, maybe even twice, by shoving metal rods into them, because that’s freedom. And then we’ll tell them to be happy raising their rapist’s child, because that’s the way God wants is.
Yup, no similarities at all between the worst versions of Sharia and what the Republican party wants for this country.
Sharia!
The most repressive law I ever heard:
Sharia, Sharia, Sharia, Sharia . . .
All the beautiful laws of God in a single word . .
Sharia, Sharia, Sharia, Shariiiii-aaaaa……
Sharia!
We’ve just passed a law named Sharia!
And suddenly the law
Will never have a flaw
(For men).
Sharia!
We’ve just passed a law named Sharia!
And suddenly we’ve found
How religiously sound
The law
Can be!
Sharia!
Say it loud and it bans music playing,
Say it soft and there’s compulsory praying.
Sharia!
We’ll never stop imposing Sharia!
The most repressive law I ever heard.
Sha-riiiiii-aaaaaaa………
With apologies to Stevie Wonder:
My Sharia law, coming to Americay
My Sharia law, supreme law of the USA
My Sharia law, righteous little law that men adore
You’re the only law my heart beats for
How I wish that you were law
La la la la la la, La la la la la la
La la la la la la, La la la la la la
Maybe someday, women’ll have to cover their face in the crowd
Maybe someday, women won’t be quite so loud
Oh, Sharia law, godly little law that men adore
You’re the only law men’s hearts beat for
How I wish that you were law.
La la la la la la, La la la la la la
La la la la la la, La la la la la la
Why are we talking about guns and Sharia and authoritarianism? The real threat is that people like Louie Gohmert can get elected to congress. How do you maintain a functioning democracy when a large portion of the electorate will vote for these people?
With apologies to The Knack:
Ooh my little righteous law, righteous law
When you gonna be the law, my Sharia?
Ooh it makes my motor run, my motor run.
‘Cuz it covered women up, my Sharia
Never gonna stop, give it up.
Such a dirty mind.
Always get it up for the sight
of some hair under a scarf.
My my my yi yi wooooo.
M-M-M-My Sharia…
Come a little closer huh, ah will ya huh.
Burka only lets me see your eyes, thanks Sharia.
Keeping it a mystery gets to me
Running down the length of my thighs, Sharia
Never gonna stop, give it up.
Such a dirty mind.
Always get it up for the sight
of a pair of eyes alone.
My my my yi yi woo.
M-M-M-My Sharia…
@Steven L. Taylor:
The British government is permitting the establishment of Sharia courts, the posting of Sharia areas and permitting acts such as child rape under Sharia law that has long been illegal in all civilized western nations.
The government isn’t the Taliban but neither is it enforcing the laws of the nation against the abuse of women and children under Muslim extremists.
@JKB: Allowing religious communities to use their faith’s rules for family law purposes. The same has happened in the US, including Christian, Jewish, and Islamic laws.
This is a fair cry from Sharia taking over the UK.
And yes: I would highly object to some of what is described in the article you linked, but that really isn’t the point of my post.
@JKB:
Shouldn’t we be far more concerned by the growing Catholic theocracy in the US? I mean Catholic churches have been permitted to set up their own eclisastical courts. Clearly this means we’re all just moments away from being force to let the local priest rape our children at will!
I’ll admit it: I ‘googled’ to see if Gohmert was previously a writer for Conan O’Brien or Jon Stewart – nope.
@JKB:
LOL!
Do you work in Louie Gohmert’s office?
true, that’s some wacky stuff there- reminds me of bidens “keep you all in chains” speech, and sheila jacksons “freed slave” utterance…..like she’s that old!?
“Sharia” is just the latest code for “other”. The political Right in this country (and particularly the very under-educated political Right, if you’ll forgive the redudancy) needs somebody to be on the lowest rung of the social ladder. The problem is those darn Gays (and Blacks, and Jews and Italians and Irish, etc.) keep mainstreaming. Vegas should open a book on what minority will be vilified next.
I saw a gun owning friend yesterday, one who likes to draw me into “meatspace” political arguments, something I do not like.
Anyway he told of his friend who got a scary knock on his door a week or two ago, and opened it to find very agitated police, hands on holsters, asking “Is that your blue Toyota truck?”
My friend believes that the only reason the police did not break down the door was the second amendment, and that citizens can be as well armed as police. He doesn’t believe the 4th amendment has any sway, it is all the 2nd, keeping us from a police state.
He is very much your modern Republican.
(Though he is, surprising me, quite convinced that violent video games drive the “tactical” thing and the spree shooters. This from a guy who does combat shooting competition himself.)
Since I’m not a constitutional or sharia scholar, the one thing that confuses me here is this: If we have guns to fight off those people who want to impose sharia law, what’s to stop them from buying even more guns to stop us from stopping them?
@wr: Come now. No need to be silly. Only patriots arm themselves!
@Steven L. Taylor:
Gohmert and Bachmann are political trolls, plain and simple. It’s just attention getting. To them, any news, good or bad, keeps them in the spotlight and has the press following them around. Otherwise, they’d just be nobodies. They’re never going to convince anyone sane — It’s just noise to feed the rage machine.
In fact, when their antics start to negatively impact their electability, they tend to shut up. Consider Bachmann: Prior to the GOP convention in 2012, you couldn’t hold a mike in front of her and not record her saying something stupid and inflammatory. She went out of her way to bring on ‘teh Big Crazy’. But then she had a closer election than she anticipated. Now she’s dropped her profile. She still has crazy thoughts but she opens her mouth much less often.
In any case, for perfect refutation of the stupid that reaches far more people and replies to the idiots with precisely the level of seriousness they deserve, we have the Onion and The Daily Show. (I enjoy the Wonkette and HuffPo’s Jason Linkins, too).
@john personna:
Um… so why were the police threatening to shoot your friend without provocation?
OK.
This great and scary “government” that is going to impose laws you don’t like? You get to vote for it. Or against it. Just like in…. I almost said “Nazi Germany.” Heh heh. Sh!t or … sh!t.
@wr:
Hold on right there: there are enough guns in this country for everyone!
@Stormy Dragon:
This was the same week when LAPD shot ladies in a blue truck, delivering newspapers. Part of the Christopher Dorner thing.
My friend made a big point of showing me the images of that bullet riddled truck as well, as if that justified an armed citizenry. I asked if the ladies being armed would have made them any safer, but apparently I missed some point. It was an armed citizenry in general that kept a lid on things, or something.
See Battle of Athens, 1946.
Because taking care of Dorner was a walk in the park, and that 1 man didn’t tie up many police resources.
@Erik Berls:
Wait, Dorner is the solution now? Because you know, he can’t be BOTH problem and solution.
Considering how widespread child rape is in the Catholic Church, and how high up to coverup and protection of the guilty goes, I think we are on rather thin ice claiming any moral high ground.
@Steven L. Taylor: Because, of course, the UK is now run by the Taliban West?
I take it you haven’t heard the term “Londonistan” or heard about how large swathes of Paris are pretty much off-limits to the Kaffir…
And let’s not forget the semi-regular car-burning riots that give new meaning to “The City Of Lights.”
And, dang it, I forgot about Dearbornistan, Michigan.
@Jenos Idanian #13: See my earlier comment about fear of the “other”. I have news for you friend, those folks in Michigan are Americans – just like I presume you are.
Instead of being so afraid of those Mexican immigrants that now comprise over 50% of Southern California’s population, or the middle-east diaspora of Dearborn, or the black guy walking up your street, I suggest you focus instead on being the best Jenos you can be. Self-aware, humble, kind, genuinely curious and accepting of differences, and open to the great opportunities of learning new and amazing things from allowing people in your life who think and act differently from you.
People who are truly strong do not need to put others down, they are confident enough to allow others to be great as well, and they are smart enough to know they don’t know everything.
Ah bah. You’ve no idea what you’re talking about. These are completely ordinary immigration problems largely unconnected to religious notions. The banlieus have been riotous hotbeds for over 30 years, far preceding the Islamist resurgence simply due to the high level of disenfra(e)nchment present there.
To find a similar example from the U.S.: would you consider the Rodney King Riots due to the Christian religion of the rioters?
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Yes, nothing screams “definitive proof” like a nickname one has read on the internet.
@Erik Berls:
The “Dorner incident” reminds us that there are just not enough guns in this country. You never know when a disaffected fired Los Angeles cop is going to go on a killing spree. Best to be prepared.
@Jenos Idanian #13: “I take it you haven’t heard the term “Londonistan” or heard about how large swathes of Paris are pretty much off-limits to the Kaffir…’
I take it you’ve never actually left this country. I take it you’ve never seen any more of the world than the drive between mommy’s basement and the 7-11 where you work.
/facepalm
@Ebenezer_Arvigenius: Well, that was profoundly stupid. I don’t recall the Rodney King rioters saying they were doing it in Jesus’ name.
And in Dearborn, people have been arrested for acting in non-Muslim ways. Things like preaching Christianity and displaying Israeli flags have gotten people tossed in jail. Look up “George Saeig” and read this account.
Yes, their arrests were dismissed, but that hardly makes it all better. And the trend does NOT point to things getting better.
Out, damned lying avatar!
OK, will it go away now?
@Jenos Idanian Who Has No Pony Tail: Maybe if you stop posting here, your avatar will stop showing up.
The exchange above puts me in the mind of a Smeagol/Gollum side conservation.
Nasty, mean, ponytailses.
Nor do I remember the 17-year ´-old hoodie wearing Parisian rioters waving the green flag. Look, like I said you’re out of your depth here (big surprise).
@Erik Berls:
Yes, one man with a gun can cause a lot of problems. No shocking revelation there.
The ability, however, of even a moderate sized guerrilla force to overthrow a government is quite limited.
See, FARC 1963-2013.
@Ebenezer_Arvigenius: You missed the September 2012 riots? Or the 2005 riots when “innocent” Muslim teens fleeing police electrocuted themselves by trying to hide in an electrical substation?
You don’t get out much, do you?
A very religious thing I’m sure.
@Ebenezer_Arvigenius: The response was quite religious — the boys were martyrs to French mistreatment of Muslim immigrants.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Given that the only side of this story is the one reported by Right Wing Blogs, let me suggest that perhaps we haven’t heard the entire thing. BTW, usually it was prefaced by the claim that “Flying the Isreali Flag is not Illegal in Dearborn” (despite lots of visual evidence about it still being flown in front of many buildings in the city).
Or course, this might have something to do with the fact that Dearborn is now the place where the American “Anti-Muslim” industry comes to protest at all times — in particular during Arab-American Festivals.
I seem to remember you having a problem with the Park 54 project because it was “too in the face” of New Yorkers. Yet you seem to stand up for people’s right getting in the face of people practicing Islam. How surprising…
Oh wait, I know, Geitner and Obama on Gay Marriage.
@matt bernius: If you think there’s another side to those stories, please feel free to find them and cite them. And I don’t recall ever saying that my opposition to the Ground Zero/Park 54 mosque should be backed up by law — I said it was a bad PR move by its backers. Pulling an in-your-face move like that in the name of “tolerance” is like “fighting for peace” or “f*cking for chastity.”
Because we all know that “French mistreatment of Muslim immigrants” is just the same as “due to Islam and wanting to introduce Sharia law”.
I rest my case.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Pulling an in-your-face move like that in the name of “tolerance” is like “fighting for peace” or “f*cking for chastity.”
Only asshole bigots like you think that Muslims living here and owning property is an “in-your-face move.”
@mantis: Stripped of the juvenile invective, your comment adds nothing to the discourse and betrays a gross ignorance on the subject.
Get back to me when you have something of value to say.
Oh, and your mother licks combat boots.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Stripped of the juvenile invective, your comment adds nothing to the discourse and betrays a gross ignorance on the subject.
I’m not ignorant of the fact that bigots like you and Pam Gellar think there should be “no Muslim zones” in this country.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
In the case of the “Isreali Flags Illegal” all I can seem to find is a single story — from the account of the arrests — that is reproduced verbatim on countless right wing, anti-islamic sites. As I said before, they’re not exactly neutral journalists in this issue and are essentially reproducing hearsay without any attempt verify the story.
As far as George Saeig, it should be noted that he was given a booth at the festival. The issue was whether or not he and his associates could distribute flyers outside the booth. And despite your attempts to suggest this is the “Taliban” taking root in America, the entire issue went through the courts and was peacefully resolved through the American courts.
Sharia never came into play in any of these issues.
So exactly how is this somehow “pointing to things not getting better” except in the imaginations of small minded bigots who are afraid of the Islamist lurking under their bed at night?
BTW, as far as the Dude with the Isreali Flags, following a number of the posts, he seems to be spending an inordinate amount of time constantly driving back and forth in front the high school with the flags for no other reason that to provoke responses and then videotape what happens.
@matt bernius:
Oh, and the Federal Courts in this case ruled against Dearborn and made them pay Saeig legal fees… clearly public stonings are the next step.
It is amazing to me how the people who are the first to go off the deep end in the defense of American Exceptional ism are also the ones who usually think we’re one act of discrimination away from being taken over by the Taliban.
@matt bernius:
This.