Religion Doesn't Create Terrorists - Society Does.

The recent motor cycle gang violence in Texas has many wondering why the media isn't talking about things like white on white crime, why prominent white leaders aren't out denouncing this violence or why the talking heads aren't dissecting the problems with white culture like they seem apt to do with violence perpetrated by non-whites.

After all, the executive director of the Midwest Outlaw Motorcycle Gang Investigators Association called these biker gangs domestic terrorists, and data show that many of the things that lead people to join extremist groups like ISIS are very similar to what leads people to join violent gangs.

Given this, it seems the media should cover terrorist organizations a little more like they have covered the biker gangs. For example, perhaps nothing exemplifies America's condemnation of Islam more than the Pew poll that shows that around 22% of countries have Blasphemy laws on the books. Of course, it should be pointed out that Canada and certain U.S. states still have blasphemy laws on the books as well, so it seems unlikely that the laws themselves have much of a correlation with violence. It should also be noted that in some of these countries blasphemy laws were introduced by Europeans not the Quran. This suggests that blaming the Muslim holy book for the actions of extremists would be like blaming Harley-Davidson for the actions of these biker gangs.

Another take away from the Pew poll is that Islam is an inherently violent religion, since in some countries a majority of Muslims support death for apostates. Obviously this exposes a problem with these believers; however, it appears that despite what polls may say, most of these supposedly radical countries ignore these laws. In fact, the vast majority of the countries haven't actually killed anyone for apostasy or blasphemy.

Bill Maher once stated that, while the U.S. has crazy Christian fundamentalists, what makes us better is that we don't let them rule our country. If courts in the majority of Islamic countries don't actually sentence anyone to death then does simply having a poll that suggests people support the law actually prove that the bulk of Muslims are really more in need of help than America's religious extremists?

Has anyone ever done a poll of Christians to ask if homosexuals should be killed for being gay? In the U.S. some 30 members of the LGBT community are killed each year. Given that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin punishable by death, there are numerous preachers who support this belief, and 76% of Christians believe the Bible is the written or inspired word of god - Would it be safe to say that the Bible is the mother lode of bad ideas? Would it be OK to castigate the entire religion for the actions of a select few? Are Americans and Christians really that much different than Muslims in the Middle East?

Polls show 57% of Republicans support making Christianity the official religion of the U.S. while 60% of Tennessee residents are in favor of making the Bible the state’s official book. Similarly majorities of Muslims are in favor of making Sharia law the official law of their country; however, contrary to what some would have you believe, many of these Muslims feel Sharia law should only cover Muslims.

Polls show that U.S. citizens described as "Steadfast Conservatives" (69%) and "Faith and Family left" (91%) both strongly support the idea that believing in God is essential to being a moral person. Similarly Muslims in various regions believe the same thing, with support ranging from 61% for Southern-Eastern Europe to 94% in Southeast Asia.

95% of Americans believe the U.S. was founded on the right for citizens to have religious freedom. Similarly, vast majorities of Muslims believe Religious Freedom is a good thing, with South Asia being the highest at 97%.

In the U.S. 38% of Whites believe Blacks are the most racist while only 10% of Whites believe Whites are the most racist. Similarly in Egypt 50% of Muslims believe Christians are hostile towards Muslims while only 35% of Muslims believe Muslims are hostile towards Christians.

For those who attend Church weekly, 69% believe humans were created by God in our present form while only 1% of this group thinks Humans evolved with no help from God. Similarly 67% of Muslims in the Palestinian territory believe God created humans as we look today.

86% of Americans believe television has caused a decline in values. Similarly 88% of Pakistan Muslims believe western entertainment has hurt morality.

Pretending that the Pew poll results of one question regarding apostasy somehow proves that the Quran is a book of evil is ignorant at best. There is little doubt that extremists that claim to represent Islam are currently the most violent among religious groups, but polling and other data suggests that Muslims across the globe and religious Americans are cut from the same conservative cloth.

The reality is, the reason that the media isn't spending much time investigating white on white crime, the absence of white leaders denouncing these murders or the problems with white culture in response to these biker gang attacks is because the media doesn't believe this is a systemic problem. Which begs the question; why are these same people not willing to accept that this could also be true of Muslim extremists?

Clearly, convincing religious followers that their holy book is not meant to be taken literally but rather used as a guide for how to be a better person would be helpful. But if the goal is to stop this sort of organized violence that plagues the world, then finding other ways to provide disaffected youth the money, protection, inclusion and social bonding they are missing that lead them to become outlaws in the first place should be our top priority. Unfortunately, for many, having an enemy that can be portrayed as inherently evil is far better for business than accepting that society’s failures create the perfect environment for violent groups to flourish.

Free Speech is a stupid reason to draw the Prophet Muhammad

Last week Bill Maher continued his one man crusade to convince liberals that belittling and disrespecting Muslims and their faith is somehow a progressive position. This week he was joined in his proselytization by 'The Blaze' analyst Will Cain.

The conversation focused on two separate Islamic based news stories that the media covered recently. The first was opposition to an award being given by the PEN organization to the satirical French Magazine Charlie Hebdo for their "courage" in depicting the Prophet Muhammad. The second was a contest held in Texas where participants had to draw Prophet Muhammad.

For his part Maher stated: "This is America. Do we not have the right to draw whatever we want?" which Cain followed up with: "You don't just have a right to free speech - when someone's position is 'if you offend me, I will kill you' it becomes virtuous for you to offend that person."

It should be noted that these comments both really miss the point of the opposition. No one is saying you can't draw a picture of the Prophet Muhammad - we agree that is your first amendment right. What they are saying is, just because you can do something does that mean you should? It also begs the question; is intentionally offending someone because they have different beliefs than you really a sign of courage?

In schools this sort of premeditated provocation is called bullying and has caused numerous young adults to take their own lives. Who is to blame for their death? The kids doing the bullying or the kid who would rather die than be tortured another day. Cain apparently blames the bullied kid. Of course, some of those who are bullied end up killing the bullies instead. According to Cain, this means the media would be virtuous in relentlessly antagonizing this child since his bully was just practicing free speech.

If killing individuals based on religious beliefs deserves a full frontal assault on that religion why has Cain never written or commented on the hundreds of LGBT are killed every year in majority Christian countries. Shouldn't the media - Cain included - condemn all Christians for the acts of these few who can't control their temper? Isn't that the courageous and righteous thing to do?

One imagines Cain and those who agree with his position would be less inclined to support a contest for drawing Jesus as a homosexual or a museum exhibition of aborted fetuses held by a pro-choice organization. Yet you can bet a couple rednecks with guns would eventually show up to voice their displeasure.

It would also be considered free speech to use the N-word anywhere you want, yet the use of the word in certain locations is likely to cost you your life. Given this reality, shouldn't Will Cain drop the N-bomb every chance he gets? Wouldn't it be virtuous of him to hold an N-word black face parade until those who would kill him change their mind?

When you continually and overtly belittle people for being who they are, eventually some of the people in these groups will respond violently. Is the answer to their violence really to be more offensive? Is unrelenting abuse really the best way to get someone to do a thorough self examination, or does it just make you look like a jerk and further solidify the belief that those outside the group are the real problem?

No one is defending ISIS or other extremist Muslims groups, but realize that it's not just the extremist that you tick off with your blanket Islamic insults. By insisting on drawing the Prophet Muhammad to offend the murders, you are also offending those who would otherwise be your allies. The vast majority of U.S. citizens agree with the goal of ending religious extremism. We just disagree with how you get there, and it has absolutely nothing to do with your first amendment rights to be a total d-bag.

Michigan legislature puts corporations ahead of voters at every turn.

After Tuesday's resounding defeat of Proposal 1 which was meant to raise funding for Michigan roads while allowing cowardly elected officials to pretend they didn't support a tax increase, the question for the legislature and Governor Rick Snyder is; what now?

Polls show that 87% of Michigan residents want Lansing to "Immediately begin working on an alternative road funding plan" which suggests that the vast majority of Michiganders understand that the states infrastructure spending has been woefully inadequate under the Republican lead legislature.

Part of the problem here is that Republican legislators are so clueless or inept that their take away from this defeat is that voters don't want to pay more taxes. While this may be true of a small percentage of people, polls show that the over 75% of voters were against proposal 1 for reasons other than a general opposition to an increased tax rate. Polls also show that 62% of Michigan residents would be willing to pay and extra $10 per month to fix Michigan's transportation system.

Not surprisingly one of the few things in Michigan with a lower favorability rating than Michigan's roads is the Michigan legislature. Yes, voters are more inclined to support Michigan's pothole covered roads than they are to support the elected body tasked with deciding what to do with our tax dollars. Perhaps it's this lack of faith in the legislature that has people unwilling to send any more money to Lansing.

After all, if you look at this legislature's priorities it becomes very clear that the people who would have ended up footing the bulk of the bill for roads under proposal 1 are many of the 50% of Michigan residents that have already seen their taxes increased by this legislature. Between 2009 and 2013 the total tax revenue Michigan collected from corporations fell from $2,554,138,000 to $687,560,000 while the revenue contributed by individuals increased from $6,071,514,000 to $8,211,359,000. This means Michigan residents have seen a 35% increase in their taxes while corporations have seen their contributions fall by 73%.

Most voters already realize that they have done their fair share by paying over $2 billion more in taxes than just a few years ago. If there isn't enough money left to pay for improving and maintaining Michigan's roads it seems the nearly $2 billion cut in taxes for corporations is the most likely culprit.

Of course the idea for cutting taxes is to bring more jobs to Michigan however it should be noted the two years prior to implementing the corporate tax cut Michigan ranked number 3 in job growth while that ranking has subsequently fallen to 21st. Instead it is likely that the political obsession with cutting taxes has cost Michigan jobs since polls show that having access to good roads was the number one concern for executives when deciding where to locate their business.

Additionally University of Michigan economist Don Grimes says that only 10,000 to 15,000 jobs per year cannot be explained by growth in the auto industry or national economic improvement. Assuming 100% of those jobs can be attributed to the corporate tax cut, which seems unlikely, are 10,000 to 15,000 new jobs really worth $2 billion in lost tax revenue?

Making matters worse is the fact that not only are individuals paying more taxes but they have also seen the value of the wages drop when compared to other states. A report by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis shows that Michigan's ranking among the states of "real per capita income" fell 38th to 39th last year. If the tax burden is going to be shifted away from corporations onto the working class shouldn't the goal be to attract the high paying jobs of the future instead of fighting for the low paying jobs of the past?

But perhaps the biggest question for this legislature is what reason is there to believe that voters support the Republican position of smaller government through tax cuts? Ask any Michigan resident if they would like to pay lower taxes and they are likely to say yes. Ask that same resident if they would like to pay less for their car, their insurance, their groceries, their gas, or their utilities. Again the answer would likely be yes. Just because people want to see their dollar go farther doesn't mean that want inferior services which is exactly what the Republican obsession with cutting taxes has done. How about we just tap some of the $5 billion the governor has earmarked for "jobs" (see corporate giveaway) and use that to fix our crumbling infrastructure?

The battle to properly fund Michigan's roads is far from over but unless voters get involved the legislature is likely to continue to increase your taxes, gut education funding, and force your local government to cut police, fire and other essential services instead of asking corporations to do their fair share. Because the only thing this legislature hates more than taxing corporation is losing their job. It's about time we make their worst fears come true.

Christian persecution is a problem, just not in the U.S.

It is widely believed that conservative Christians are a key demographic for Republicans. Evidence also suggests that fear mongering is an important political tool used by most politicians and pundits. It comes as no surprise then that the conservative media has spent much of the past decade attempting to paint Christianity as under attack. The problem is the reality doesn't match the narrative.

For example, after a Kentucky court ruled in favor of a t-shirt maker that refused to print shirts for a gay and lesbian organization Fox News' resident Christian outrage peddler, Todd Starnes, sat down with Lou Dobbs and claimed this was a win for religious freedom. While this is clearly the story the conservative media would like to push the decision was actually about freedom of speech, not religious freedom.

In fact the judge’s ruling stated: [“T]he right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all."

Companies are free to choose which products they will and will not sell; this applies to all companies regardless of their religious views. In this case the owners felt that the wording on the shirt was offensive and refused to sell the product. They were not refusing to serve a specific customer as is the case in the other situations that have made news recently.

This is no different than Wal-Mart’s recent decision not to sell UFC fighter Ronda Rousey's autobiography in their stores because they felt it was too violent. Ronda Rousey has no constitutional right to have her book sold at Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart customers have no constitutional right to purchase this book at Wal-Mart.

Conversely, when religious freedom advocates fain indignation over Christian business owners being sued for denial of service what they are really promoting is the option to discriminate based on religious beliefs. Regardless of your religious beliefs it is unconstitutional to deny people service based on who they are.

The problem with people like Todd Starnes is they are either ignorant to this distinction, which is embarrassing for a supposed expert in the field or they are purposefully misleading their consumers, which is both embarrassing and shameful.

Of course the fight over corporate religious freedom is only one car in this politically motivated freight train of misguided Christian fury. Others like Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee believe "We are moving rapidly toward the criminalization of Christianity,” As proof Huckabee says "there are numerous cases, whether it’s the chaplains in the military being told to put their bibles away, no longer pray in Jesus’ name, not to counsel people who are in a homosexual lifestyle, not to counsel them to try to seek assistance for that,".

One assumes some of the other "numerous cases" Huckabee is referencing include when corporations exercise their religious freedom and say "Happy Holidays" to customers instead of "Merry Christmas" or when public schools refuse to allow religious services on school grounds.

Having said that, this idea that there is some sort of "War on Christianity" in the U.S. is small minded and insultingly insensitive to Christians across the globe that experience true religious persecution. As the Open Doors organization points out every month 322 Christians are killed for their faith, 214 Christian churches and properties are destroyed and 772 forms of violence are committed against Christians around the world. Imagine the conservative media coverage if these sort of things happened in America.

The reality is there are few if any places in the world where it is better to be Christian than the U.S so pretending that being forced to abide by the constitution is somehow a "war" comes off a lot like the spoiled rich kid who's parents won't upgrade the radio on the new BMW I8 they are buying for his birthday. It just makes you look uninformed, selfish and silly.

No on Proposal 1 is good for Michigan

The good folks over at Eclectablog feel liberals and progressives should vote in favor of proposal 1 and have put together a three part series discussing their rationale. While the assertion that the "truly progressive position is to support (Proposal 1)" is a bit self-aggrandizing and off putting the authors present plenty of good reasons to support this ballot measure.

Unfortunately while claiming to hold the truly liberal position they seem to be somewhat oblivious as to the actual reason for liberals to vote against proposal 1. The opposition isn't to send the legislature a message. History shows they either don't care or don't understand what voters want. The opposition isn't because Rick Snyder supports it. Voting against your own best interested to spite the man at the top is a conservative thing. The opposition isn't a way to force the legislature back to the drawing board. Properly funding Michigan's infrastructure needs has been kicked down the road for years - this legislature clearly isn't capable of producing a viable solution no matter how long they are giving.

No the real progressive opposition to this bill finally standing up the bullies in Lansing and letting them know we aren't going to take this anymore. Getting funds for our roads and bridges, properly supporting public education, and restoring the tax credits for the working poor are all things this legislature should have done without holding voters hostage. The fact that these legislators repeatedly and consistently chose special interests over their constituents needs should cost them their jobs.

The staff at Eclectablog would probably agree with this statement however they seem defeated regarding the prospect of Democrats regaining control and doing the job voters expect from their elected officials, stating "If voters weren't motivated to get out and vote in 2014 after all Republicans had done to our state, I have little confidence they will do so in big enough numbers to take back the House and Senate in 2016, either".

Given how demoralized the authors sound a year and a half before the 2016 election cycle it is no wonder they are willing to capitulate on proposal 1. If failure is predetermined then taking the best deal you can get is the obvious choice. The problem is the assumption that voters won't remove Republicans in the future is anything but predetermined.

Republicans have put an awful lot of eggs in the proposal 1 basket and stand to lose some political capital upon its defeat. Democrats can easily show their Republican counterparts not only passed bill after bill that went against voters’ wishes but also limited the voters’ recourse by castrating democracy. Beyond that, few voters are so involved in politics that they would be outraged by many of the things liberal bloggers think should drive people to the polls. Crumbling roads and bridges however are a very salient failure of the legislature that voters are certain to remember.

Of course the biggest reason to be optimistic that 2016 will be different than 2014 is the fact that 2016 is a presidential election year. Michigan is a blue state and nothing turns out Democrats like a presidential election. In fact Michigan has voted for Democrats for president every years since 1988 including a 17 point win for President Barack Obama in 2008. Given the cacophony of ideologues currently vying for the Republican presidential nomination it seems likely that the Democratic candidate will again turn out a large number of voters in 2016. These numbers should have a positive impact on Democrats running for state office.

There is little doubt that Michigan needs much of what proposal 1 offers but enough is enough. Liberals need to stop taking what they can get and start demanding what they deserve. Based on the results of the past 4 years the only way to make sure that happens is to replace as many of the corporate sponsored Republicans as possible. Voting no on proposal 1 is the first step in removing the devilish shade of red that is slowing strangling this state.