At least Muslims have seen some good results from the recent elections (on Tuesday).-KAS
At least Muslims have seen some good results from the recent elections (on Tuesday).-KAS
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2010/11/anti-islam-rhetoric-in-the-elections-first-take.html
Anti-Islam Rhetoric in the Elections: First Take
Posted by James Lamond
Abu Aardvark has a great post up about how the anti-Muslim rhetoric played out in this election, and some of the international consequences. I would like to add to the discussion a quick breakdown of the results of key elections where anti-Muslim rhetoric was front and center:
• Keith Ellison, who was targeted in the campaign by both a group called Americans Against Hate and The Tea Party Nation because “He is the only Muslim member of congress. He supports the Counsel for American Islamic Relations, HAMAS and has helped congress send millions of tax dollars to terrorists in Gaza,” won by more than 40 percentage points (67.8% to 24.2%). (Andre Carson, also a Muslim, also won reelection by more than 20 percentage points (58.7% to 37.8%)).
• Sharron Angle, who played the fear card with claims that Sharia has taken over American cities, lost in Nevada.
• Bruce Braley, who was attacked by his opponent (Benjamin Lange) for not opposing the “victory mosque” won by two percentage points (49.5% – 47.6%).
• Nick Rahall, who is Lebanese American and was targeted by the West Virginia Conservative Foundation (WVCF) for his outreach to the Arab-American community, and by his opponent (Spike Maynard) who ran an ad saying donations to Rahall by the National Association of Arab-Americans PAC, the National Muslims for a Better America PAC and the Arab American Leadership PAC amount to “terrorist ties” and that Rahall is “good for the Middle East, bad for America,” won with 56% of the vote.
• Carl Paladino, who ran ads denouncing the “Ground Zero mosque” lost by over 25 percentage points in the NY governor’s race.
• Illario Pantano, the candidate for North Carolina’s 7th District, who wrote in the Daily Caller that, “the Cordoba Mosque in Spain symbolized a gateway to Muslim conquest of Western Europe – a conquest which today is unfolding in real time,” lost by almost 8 points.
It was not all one sided. Renee Elmers, from the North Carolina 2nd district, who ran this ad challenging her opponent to take a position on the "victory mosque," won by a slim margin. More details should come out as the exit poll results come, but reports from North Carolina say that the issue played in the late summer/early fall, but died down as weeks went on. There was also the ballot initiative in Oklahoma that blocks judges from considering Islamic or international law when making a ruling - a common issue in Oklahoma.
November 03, 2010 at 06:56 PM | Permalink
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2010/11/anti-islam-rhetoric-in-the-elections-first-take.html
Anti-Islam Rhetoric in the Elections: First Take
Posted by James Lamond
Abu Aardvark has a great post up about how the anti-Muslim rhetoric played out in this election, and some of the international consequences. I would like to add to the discussion a quick breakdown of the results of key elections where anti-Muslim rhetoric was front and center:
• Keith Ellison, who was targeted in the campaign by both a group called Americans Against Hate and The Tea Party Nation because “He is the only Muslim member of congress. He supports the Counsel for American Islamic Relations, HAMAS and has helped congress send millions of tax dollars to terrorists in Gaza,” won by more than 40 percentage points (67.8% to 24.2%). (Andre Carson, also a Muslim, also won reelection by more than 20 percentage points (58.7% to 37.8%)).
• Sharron Angle, who played the fear card with claims that Sharia has taken over American cities, lost in Nevada.
• Bruce Braley, who was attacked by his opponent (Benjamin Lange) for not opposing the “victory mosque” won by two percentage points (49.5% – 47.6%).
• Nick Rahall, who is Lebanese American and was targeted by the West Virginia Conservative Foundation (WVCF) for his outreach to the Arab-American community, and by his opponent (Spike Maynard) who ran an ad saying donations to Rahall by the National Association of Arab-Americans PAC, the National Muslims for a Better America PAC and the Arab American Leadership PAC amount to “terrorist ties” and that Rahall is “good for the Middle East, bad for America,” won with 56% of the vote.
• Carl Paladino, who ran ads denouncing the “Ground Zero mosque” lost by over 25 percentage points in the NY governor’s race.
• Illario Pantano, the candidate for North Carolina’s 7th District, who wrote in the Daily Caller that, “the Cordoba Mosque in Spain symbolized a gateway to Muslim conquest of Western Europe – a conquest which today is unfolding in real time,” lost by almost 8 points.
It was not all one sided. Renee Elmers, from the North Carolina 2nd district, who ran this ad challenging her opponent to take a position on the "victory mosque," won by a slim margin. More details should come out as the exit poll results come, but reports from North Carolina say that the issue played in the late summer/early fall, but died down as weeks went on. There was also the ballot initiative in Oklahoma that blocks judges from considering Islamic or international law when making a ruling - a common issue in Oklahoma.
November 03, 2010 at 06:56 PM | Permalink
Labels: At least Muslims have seen some good results from the recent elections on Tuesday KAS
posted by Kevin Anthony Stoda at 7:32 AM
1 Comments:
Muslim Sues Oklahoma Over Anti-Shariah Ballot Measure
Published November 04, 2010 | FoxNews.com
advertisement
Just two days after Oklahoma voters approved a ballot measure banning state courts from considering Islamic or international law when ruling on cases, a local Muslim has filed a federal lawsuit saying the measure is unconstitutional.
The lawsuit against ballot measure, State Question 755 – or better known as "Save Our State" -- seeks a temporary restraining order to block the results of the election from being certified by the state Election Board on Nov. 9. The measure is scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1.
Oklahoma residents approved the measure with 70 percent of the vote in Tuesday's election.
But Muneer Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma who filed the lawsuit, said that the measure is unnecessary because there is no threat of an Islamic takeover of state courts. Muslims make up only 30,000 of the state's nearly 4 million residents – less than 1 percent.
Awad said the measure violates his First Amendment right to freedom of religion because it singles out Islam. He said the measure is just another way to politically savage Muslims.
The Islamic community in Oklahoma has complained about the past actions of the state legislature, including a proposal to forbid Muslim women from wearing head garments in driver's license photos and refusing to accept a Koran from a Muslim advisory council at an official state ceremony.
Proponents of the anti-Islamic law measure have cited a New Jersey family court judge's decision not to grant a restraining order to a woman who was sexually abused by her Moroccan husband and forced repeatedly to have sex with him.
The judge ruled that her ex-husband felt he had behaved according to his Muslim beliefs and that he did not have "criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault" his wife.
But New Jersey's Appellate Court overturned the decision in July, ruling that the husband's religious beliefs were irrelevant and that the judge, in taking them into consideration, "was mistaken."
Shariah is the basis of law in most Islamic countries, though its implementation varies. It has been used in Iran and Somalia, among other places, to condone harsh punishments like amputations and stoning.
Proponents of the Oklahoma ballot measure say the possibility of Shariah law coming to American isn't remote, pointing to Britain, where at least 85 Shariah courts are operating.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Post a Comment
<< Home