Alabama recently enacted “Arizona-style” immigration legislation designed to be the harshest in the nation, giving police the authority to stop and detain any person who they suspect of being in the state illegally.  Undocumented immigrants are barred from receiving any public benefits, including the most basic necessities.  Public schools will also be allowed to ascertain immigration status before admitting pupils. The bill also places a penalty on all lawful residents of the state who have any helpful contact with undocumented residents:

“Alabama’s new law will require schools, businesses, and landlords to verify the immigration status of their students, employees and tenants, respectively,” Caroline May writes. “Police will be allowed to detain people on suspicion of being in the country illegally and it will be unlawful to give a ride to an undocumented immigrant.”

The bill is scheduled to take effect on September 1st, and is already drawing fire from the ACLU and Southern Poverty Law Center, who have vowed to challenge the law in court, saying that the “unconstitutional” law will “perpetuate bigotry” and “set back years of civil rights progress in the state and have devastating economic consequences.”  The Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Methodist churches, among others, have all voiced opposition to the new law.

And of course, as Paragould, AR’s Miguel Perez notes, this legislation is not far from the bigotry at its core, and brings the proverbial “Bigotry title” back to the Deep South, again:

Just when we thought no other state could beat Arizona as the champion of hatred, xenophobia and immigrant-bashing legislation, the Deep South reclaimed its title as the all-time champion of discrimination.  Imagine how the bigots in Georgia and Alabama must have felt when they saw bigots in Arizona grabbing all the headlines. They had to do something to prove they still can discriminate better than anyone…
With the re-emergence of institutionalized bigotry in the Deep South, a new civil rights movement also is beginning to emerge. And as African-Americans prevailed in the 1960s, today’s immigrants also will overcome this new wave of racism in America.

And may they overcome.  For all of our sakes.  Que no existan las diferencias entre nosotros…Americanos.

Poor social conservatives.

I can’t imagine what it must be like to live one’s entire life with a clear hold on the societal status quo, clearly seeing one’s will reflected in every forum, clearly belonging to and securing the rights of the group in power — only to have one’s proverbial rug swept from under them with a seemingly neverending barrage of life-changing legislation.

Today, the battleground is New York, and the battle lines have been drawn over same-sex marriage.  Of course, debates like this bring out the usual suspects (the Family Research Council’s call to prayer, The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer, National Organization for Marriage buying ad time on TV, et al.), but it seems like same-sex marriage brings the right-wing out of the woodwork like no other issue.

To wit, now we have David Tyree, former NY Giants Super Bowl star, coming out saying that same-sex marriage will lead to “anarchy”:

Tyree spoke this past Tuesday at New York City’s City Hall at a meeting of Christian clergy united to voice their opposition to same-sex marriage.  Opponents of same-sex marriage in Albany said they felt “frustrated” that State Senate Republicans were not as willing to meet with them as they were with supporters of marriage equality.  The sole Jewish clergymember cited by the NY Times in Albany, Rabbi Noson S. Leiter, executive director of Monsey, NY-based Torah Jews for Decency, was quoted as saying an oft-repeated Tea Party-style slogan: “ultra-liberal senators should understand that the government should have no right to impose a counter-biblical definition of marriage, family and gender.”

Anyone familiar with my work knows that I am committed to Judaism.  The Talmud does teach against same-sex marriage in Chullin 92a, saying that the nations of the world have the Divine merit of never having written a ketubah (marriage contract) for two males.  My opinion about this is that while the Talmud does proscribe same-sex marriage contracts, that which our governments perform today may not fall into the category of “marriage contract” to which the Talmud refers.  The libertarian approach — that government should remove itself from private relationships entirely, sanctioning no marriages and only performing “civil unions” — would also work well here.  In other words, it is entirely possible to achieve compliance with the words of the Talmud while achieving marriage equality under American law.

If we are to have an equal protection clause in our Constitution ensuring equal rights for all American citizens, it is going to be increasingly hard for social conservatives to emerge successful in America’s courts.  As Focus on the Family already recognized, social conservatives have basically lost this battle in their cultural war already.

Finally, we social progressives seem to be winning in the opinion polls.

A new poll released by CNN yesterday shows a shift in the mind of the voting public — for the first time since CNN began asking the question in 1993, the percentage of voters who say that government should promote “traditional values” has fallen below 50% (full PDF of the poll results here). 50% said that government should not promote any type of particular values, while 46% said that government should promote traditional values.

This is the lowest number in these 18 years — and down from an all time high of 59% in October 2001.  Not surprisingly, 60% of Republicans said the government should promote traditional values.  But the number of independent voters — those swing votes needed for any national candidate — wanting to hear traditional values coming from DC dropped 12 points since last year.  Economic issues like jobs and seniors’ Medicare are simply beginning to take the front seat in the mind of the American voter.

CNN notes — rightfully so — that this is far from the end of the “values voter”.  We are far from having a social mandate: we are still unable to tell the powerful, socially conservative far Right where to go and how to get there.  However, this shows cultural tides are shifting. Quick.

The “values” crowd went from a 16 point advantage in 2008 to a 4 point deficit now.  Twenty points. Three short years.  Who would have thought even a decade ago that we would see numbers like 70% of youth (18-34) — and 61% of men aged 18-49, an almost 1/3 jump in a year’s time — supporting same-sex marriage in 2011? A majority of voters supporting same-sex unions — in TEXAS?

Regardless of one’s faith, I believe that any voter who says that “I want to see my traditional values coming from Washington, DC in the form of legislation” is only asking for heartbreak at best and lawsuits at worst.  Is Congress the group of people these voters truly believe are equipped to make moral decisions on behalf of their families?

How do the same people who clamor for the government to get out of their lives simultaneously clamor for anti-abortion, anti-woman, anti-LGBT, and anti-marriage legislation?  Would they really like to see a law passed about same-sex marriage rather than simply teaching their own children their values – and letting other people live their lives in peace? Is this not antithetical to the entire “small government” doctrine of DC infringing as little as possible on the lives of citizens?

Our Constitution holds freedom of (or freedom from) religion to be sacrosanct.  In America, one simply can not attempt to codify their religious doctrine into U.S. Law except in the area of religious accommodations (e.g., kosher laws, sharia-compliant banking, etc).  This principle is invoked against Muslims continuously — the Christian Right would do well to heed their own advice. And let us not forget, many people of faith in America hold “progressive values” to be as close to their faiths as the “social conservatives” do.

We’re not out of the woods yet, but the Radical Christianist agenda is not sustainable.  As voices of unity and equality begin to win out more and more over those of hatred, bigotry and inequality, these numbers will only continue to shift.

I wanted to take this post to apologize for being out of commission for the past few months.  These past few months have seen a lot of activity on the hip-hop side of things.

First, my new EP “See Me” was released on Shemspeed Records last month, celebrated with a fantastic release party at The Mint in Los Angeles.  My new video, “This is Unity“, was released last month as well, having been sponsored by Bechol Lashon, one of the premier organizations showcasing and celebrating Jewish Diversity in America today.  I released a new single, “Mr. President (The Wisconsin Song)” together with Connecticut-based rapper AWKWORD — a political protest anthem standing in strong solidarity with the workers of Wisconsin and other public workers about to be bled dry by a rabidly anti-worker Tea Party-driven GOP.  And, last month, my video, “For My People” — the political track so controversial it didn’t make it to the EP — came out, in collaboration with Guggenheim Award-winning video artist KASUMI:

I performed at the US-Mideast Hip-Hop Exchange Week at Washington University in St. Louis, an event which drew ire from the Palestine Solidarity Movement, where I promoted interfaith unity together with numerous Muslim rappers from Morocco, Libya, and beyond.  I performed for the first time for the Winnipeg, Manitoba Jewish community.  I was invited to speak at the Muslim-Jewish Conference in Germany, where Jewish and Muslim community leaders come together to strategize for interfaith unity and to visit each other’s communities to create solidarity.

And I have remained on the front line of the struggle for unity as much as I have been able.

Now we get back to chronicling the revolution.

photo courtesy of Arabnews.com

These past few weeks have seen nothing but unrest from the most varied of places.  From Tunisia to Albania and beyond – the world’s economic unrest is producing a tornado of popular uprisings and a kaleidoscope of power dynamics is emerging that may shape the next decade.  As I write this article, all eyes are toward Egypt, where popular unrest has left at least 5 people dead and over 870 injured.

On January 3 in Tunisia, Mohammed Bouazizi, 26, a produce worker angered when police confiscated his stand (his sole source of support for his wife and children) died after setting himself on fire a few weeks before.  This set off the “Jasmine Revolution“, and popular discontentment with unemployment, corruption, and poverty would drive thousands into the streets — exiling the president in under two weeks.

The spirit of unrest would spread to neighboring Algeria. On January 16, 26-year-old Mohsen Bouterfif set himself on fire in a “copycat suicide” after failing to find a job. The protesting had already begun over a week earlier, with police opening fire on protesters, many of whom were workers who had not been paid for months, demanding their wages.  Algerians fed up with repression, government authoritarianism, and economic disrepair would protest for the following weeks, over 1,100 people would be arrested, and the government would be forced to cut food prices.

That week would see housing protests in Libya, and protests for higher wages in Oman.  All this led some to wonder if we were witnessing the beginning of an “Arab awakening“.  Protests in Jordan would erupt, over rising prices and unemployment.  Some estimate Jordanian unemployment as high as 30% — while Amman, Jordan’s capital, has one of the highest standards of living in the Arab world.

Next, Albania would see its own Tunisia-style protest, with three people killed and over 30 wounded on the streets of the capital Tirana January 21 when police open fire on a 20,000-strong march.  Albanians were calling for the resignation of the new conservative government, who they are accusing of corruption and election-rigging.  And now, Yemen is the newest country to see its share of popular unrest, with tens of thousands of people taking to the streets to protest the government of Ali Abdullah Saleh.  Yemeni people’s discontentment with unemployment and political repression have brought some to say that Yemen is on the brink of civil war.

Is this the beginning of the year of revolution?  Will 2011 be the year that civil unrest topples every regime that the people view as unjust?

While every progressive loves to wax romantic about “the people” taking “the power” from “the man”, many of these revolutions may prove toxic.  Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood is already uniting with the political opposition there, meaning a power vacuum could put a framework of even greater repression in place.  Removing Ali Abdullah Saleh from power in Yemen may satisfy some in the Yemeni population — but this would decidedly not include Yemen’s fragile Jewish population, who were saved from certain massacre numerous times by the Saleh administration’s intervention.

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is staying conspicuously absent from the growing unrest there, but in the event of a power vacuum, could easily become a key player in any future Egyptian framework.  Even since being officially banned by the government, the party has enjoyed popular affections that could be played upon in any future coalition.  This is not to mention Israel — if there’s no Mubarak, there’s no guarantee of any peace treaties or past agreements being honored.

And we’ve already seen what this spirit of revolution has brought us here in America — a Congress full of tea baggers, conspiracy theorists, and Islamophobes like Allen West.  Inspiring the masses bring the risk that all the wrong people will put their inspiration into motion.

2011 will definitely be a year where the people’s voice is heard.  What the people have to say, however, remains yet to be seen.

Pennsylvania’s West Chester University has become the center of a racism controversy this week, following the appearance of some “White Students’ Union” fliers around campus, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported. Accusations of racism and suspicion of white supremacist activity began to fly around campus, with some students suspecting the group had been created to “mock” or “spite” the Black Students Union and other diversity-based organizations on campus.

Upon further investigation, University President Pam Sheridan found that the quasi-fictional WSU was actually “designed to bring antiracist allies together” and provoke discussion about race and racial issues.  West Chester University sent out an email this past Wednesday saying that the group did not exist – “there is no White Students’ Union, and there is no meeting” – and that the flier was only designed to promote dialogue.

If anything, being an overwhelmingly (over 80%) white school, West Chester University needs a White Students’ Union more than many other schools.  Of course, no college wants white supremacist or racist activity on its campus.  However, if University President Sheridan’s assessment of this group is correct, that this group was designed to bring anti-racist allies together, then all schools need White Students’ Unions.

News flash: White people exist, and they have points of view.

It is a sad fact that so many of us in the anti-racist movement consider Whites’ perspectives in cross-cultural relations to be secondary at best (unwelcome at worst).  While Whites are undoubtedly the group in power in America (the historical “ingroup” since America’s inception), to say that a discussion about racism only requires participation from people of color is counterproductive.  In fact, one could question if such a discussion is productive at all — if I, as a Black man, agree with a room full of Black people that a particular thing is racist, if we do not inform non-Black people of this fact, will any of us Blacks see a decrease in our level of offense taken?  Do Whites not need to hear our concerns?  Do we not even need to hear Whites’ issues regarding race relations?

White people exist and need to be treated as such if any discussion about racism is going to be fruitful.  While I do not believe the University’s action was per se anti-white discrimination – this was not the “exclusion of Western European culture” like one Daily Local commenter implied – the fact that this group is not going to exist means that once again, we have fostered an “anti-racist” environment where every group but whites is entitled to a safe discussion space.  Is there even a possibility that there are things anti-racist White people may feel more comfortable discussing in a White discussion group – where they may feel less pre-judged as an “oppressor” or member of a group in power – than in a diverse group?  Has anyone asked any White people?

In fact – since there is no place called “Whiteland” – “whiteness” is also a social construct.  How can we discuss this construct, and its deconstruction (along with the deconstruction of white privilege, etc.), without White people being able to have a forum to speak about it?

A “whites only” social clique of course has no place on a 21st-century university campus.  Nor does racism, intolerance, or bigotry. But to have an education environment where all viewpoints are equally represented means representing White people’s points of view.

White people deserve to have the same forums to voice their concerns as anyone else – to say otherwise, well, wouldn’t it be racist?

The Southern Poverty Law Center, the civil rights organization dedicated to tracking hate-based organizations and hate speech in media, recently revised its list of hate groups.

In addition to tracking organizations like the National Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and the more tamely-named White nationalist “Council of Conservative Citizens”, the SPLC has taken on a new area of focus: homophobic radical Christian groups like the Family Research Council and American Family Association.

Finally. Kudos to the SPLC for calling out the radical Christianist agenda.  Enough with the guise of “pro-family” rhetoric.  There is too much blood on these groups’ hands.  The SPLC has called these bigots to task for their hate speech and suicide-inducing vitriol.

According to the SPLC, an analysis of 14 years of hate-crime data shows that GLBT people are the most victimized group in America, “more than twice as likely to be attacked in a violent hate crime as Jews or blacks; more than four times as likely as Muslims; and 14 times as likely as Latinos.”  In their Winter 2010 “Intelligence Report”, the SPLC designates eighteen Christian organizations – “The Hard Liners” – 13 of which are designated officially as hate groups for the first time this year for having “continued to pump out demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals and other sexual minorities.”

Kudos to the SPLC and it’s about time we begin having the courage to call these bigots for what they are and begin to see past the veneer of “religion” spread over them.  Indeed, as Dr. Warren Throckmorton says over at Crosswalk.org:

Christian groups should care about nuance and bearing honest witness. They should avoid misleading stereotypes and strive for accuracy in fact claims. When they are fast and loose with facts, they hurt the church and the good work that others are doing. Being designated a hate group is a serious matter and one which should cause reflection about the relevance of the charges rather than defensiveness.

And they are getting defensive.  Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association lamented his “truth speech” being labeled hate speech, saying the SPLC is engaged in “name-calling”.  Utilizing the tired cliche of “a progressive’s last resort is to shout ‘hate speech!’”, Fischer defends his anti-gay “myths” the SPLC quotes, referring to them as “truths”, including his claim about the Nazi Party’s secretly being orchestrated by GLBT people (egregious, considering, in the words of one judge, the Reich considered gays “fodder for the concentration camps”).

The list of Christian hate ministries under SPLC watch includes the American Family Association, Coral Ridge Ministries, Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, Liberty Counsel, Traditional Values Coalition, and the National Organization for Marriage.  Also included are the Quran-burning Islamophobes at Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, FL, and the Chalcedon Foundation, which “is opposed to modern notions of equality, democracy or tolerance.”

You can read all the hate speech here.

Now that the SPLC has done it, will we do the same?  Will we, in our communities, treat these ministries the same way as we treat the American Nazi Party or KKK?  These groups are no less detrimental to our society than hood-wearing racists or anti-Semites with swastika pendants.  These people must be stopped – if not by legislation then by vocal opposition transmitting the true G-dly voice of love, tolerance, coexistence, and unity.

Much love to the SPLC for taking the first step.  Now it’s up to us to follow suit.

Today is Election Day 2010: the much-anticipated midterm elections both the left and the right have been talking about virtually since 2008.  America has seen the fringe enter the mainstream, the “mainstream” become fringe, and a host of otherwise unelectable candidates take center stage in an election The Weekly Standard’s Jay Cost calls a venture into “uncharted territory”.

I, for one, am scared.  As a progressive who values every living human being’s intrinsic value, I fear for a populace already beaten by unemployment now having to fend even more and more for itself. The GOP’s Pledge to America laments that there are “over 2,050 different assistance programs available to states, local governments,for-profit and non-profit organizations, groups, and individuals.” A statement like that makes me think they’re all at risk, and for that, I fear for America.

A party comes out with some of the most racist vitriol ever seen on campaign posters, from witch doctors to swastikas, and, powered by FOX News and conservative punditry, takes a hold of a huge swath of the country.  Undeniably, at least some of the anger powering the Tea Party activists is race-based.  Just this morning, Mother Jones and Jack and Jill Politics broke the story of Tea Party activists intimidating black student voters in South Carolina.  The founder of Tea Party Nation wants a Muslim-free Congress and says this openly online (and this is not the most anti-Muslim sentiment in the Party, either). For this, I fear for all Americans of minority descent.  To elect the same people whose followers could put a picture of Obama with a bone in his nose on a poster sets America back eons in race relations.  And let’s make no mistake, these people vote almost unanimously Republican.

The Tea Party has claimed repeatedly that it has no social agenda, but its candidates make their agendas clear:  from Sharron Angle recommending rape and incest victims carry their children to term to “make a lemon situation into lemonade” to Rand Paul wanting to repeal The Civil Rights Act’s Title II to Christine O’Donnell advocating “reparative therapy” for the gay “identity disorder” to Carl Paladino’s “dysfunctional homosexual” near-flub.   Glenn Beck’s attempting to inject G-d and Scriptural discourse into the political conservative agenda only galvanizes the social conservative one.

The Tea Party will equal a disaster when it comes to social issues.  Their determination to not speak about social issues does not make them any less relevant, on the contrary, it makes the Tea Party’s silence on these issues that much more deafening.  Their insistence that “G-d, guns, and gays” are not on their agenda is tantamount to a level of dishonesty they would never have tolerated from the Left.

As I watch the polls close, I wonder if I am watching doors of opportunity close for working families who may have to make it without food stamps, unemployment or S-CHIP insurance.  I wonder if more children will be shuffling off to school unsupervised in the cold with no breakfast while a sole breadwinner has to work 2 or 3 shifts to replace housing assistance or to pay for a prescription.  And all the while, corporations making bigger (and more unregulated) profits off the backs of the poor serfs they got to go to bat for them.

To the polls, everyone.

Religion Dispatches’ Candace Chellew-Hodge wrote today about SC gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley’s vision for South Carolina public preschools and pre-K classes.

Abolish them.  In Haley’s words, public early childhood education should be replaced by “creative” alternatives “that don’t cost government dollars.”

And what type of creative alternatives should be sought?  Faith-based ones, she says, and as Candace Chellew-Hodge points out, only certain faiths need apply:

“What I will do is get a huge faith-based coalition together from all over the state and develop a community project, which is preschool programs, afterschool programs, job shadowing, mentoring, won’t cost the first dollar,” [SC Gubernatorial Candidate Nikki Haley] said. “But just imagine what we could do if we create a plan like that for South Carolina where they can go into those rural areas and sometimes show those kids something they don’t always see, or mentor them, or help them with their homework in a way they don’t get. That’s when South Carolina will be strong again. That’s when we can make improvements that are creative that don’t cost government dollars.”

Yes, just imagine! As in most of the country, and especially in the deep South like South Carolina, when Haley says “faith-based organizations” what she really means is “Christian organizations.” Here in South Carolina, Muslims, Jews, or any liberal faiths like the Unitarian Universalists or the United Church of Christ, need not apply.

I can’t imagine that “Dar ul-Islam Early Childhood Center” would get as much love as “First Baptist Day Care”, and Ms. Chellew-Hodge sees through the veneer of the multicultural-sounding “faith-based” initiative as much as I do.  This is only a gateway to the utopia all of these radical Christianists envision:  the indoctrination of America to the point that their outlook becomes normalcy.

In their minds, they’re spreading morality to the next generation.  In their minds, they are staving off what they see as a cultural decline by arming the next generation against what they see as a social ill.

Were they truly open to diversity of opinion, were the pro-gay Metropolitan Community Church or Muslim groups like MCNA truly to be operating on equal footing, there would be less of an issue.  But the fact that this initiative is coming from a Sarah Palin-backed Republican makes me think that anti-choice, pro-homophobia, anti-progress organizations will be at the forefront of such a radical shift towards parochial supremacy.

The Right always says that the Left wants to brainwash (“indoctrinate“) youth.  Nikki Haley and her Tea Party compatriots prefer their version — neural baptism.

In North Carolina’s Senate debate, Sen. Richard Burr (R) and Secretary of State Elaine Marshall (D), exchanged views on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, but after the moderator asked if the candidates believed sexual orientation was “biological” or a “choice.”  Burr said that the evidence was “inconclusive”.  Marshall “glared” back at Burr, replying with what most of the nation considers obvious, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”  equates to “governmental discrimination,” equal to “judging people by the color of their hair, the color of their eyes, or the color of their skin, or other factors they have no control over.”  Burr replied that he was only speaking about a “specific” group of “indidviduals” and that Marshall should “not bring race into this”.

Delaware’s House Race brings a candidate so extreme, NY Magazine said he makes Christine O’Donnell look like “the President of the ACLU”:

Yep, in the demented world of Glen Urquhart, only Nazis believe in separation of church in State.

Speaking of separation of church and state, Christine O’Donnell has no idea where one would get the idea that such a concept is in the Constitution.  She also could not name one Senate Democrat with whom she would work.

Nevada’s Sharron Angle gaffes and tells a group of Latino high school students that they look “a little more Asian” to her than Latino.  When her aide, Heidi Harris, was asked about an Angle apology, she replied that “Angle should not apologize to the students she offended because her Mexican grandchildren give her carte blanche to talk about Latinos in any way she wants.”

Ken Buck, the Tea Party darling in Colorado, besides calling global climate change a “hoax”, also supported a Proposition which would have given legal personhood to fertilized eggs, and is being increasingly called to task for having called a 2006 rape case a “pitiful” case of “buyer’s remorse”.

Ken Buck also called being gay a “lifestyle choice”, comparing it to alcoholism.  Apparently, this is a common sentiment among his church community. (Could you imagine if he were part of a Muslim group with radical views?)

That’s all for now.  This is the radical bigotry that the right wing in America is sending to the polls in two weeks.  It will be a lamentable travesty if any more of America is duped into voting for their hatred.