Muslims and Neighbors Hold Prayer Service Against SCR 15; Curd Brings Blinders

Several Sioux Falls Muslims and neighbors of other faiths attended a prayer service at the Islamic Center of Sioux Falls yesterday to protest Senate Concurrent Resolution 15, our Republican Legislature’s dogged effort to make Muslims feel like they don’t belong in South Dakota. SCR 15 evolved this week from vote of no confidence in refugee-resettling Lutheran Social Services to a contradictory statement of praise for the President’s “unifying words” and his “commitment to keeping our nation safe from radical Islamic terrorism.”

“Words hurt. They marginalize. They make us the other,” said Taneeza Islam, a Sioux Falls lawyer and community activist. “We are beautiful Americans, and we will no longer stand by to allow for inflammatory rhetoric by our state leaders.”

Members of other faiths appeared, as well, including Father Larry Ort of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Brookings. “Radical Islamic terrorism” disparages all Muslims, Ort said.

“It’s somewhat like our using the term ‘the drunken Irish, the Mexican wetback, the Chinese laundryman,” Ort said [John Hult, “Muslims Reject Radical Label from Senate Resolution,” that Sioux Falls paper, 2017.03.03].

Hult reports that “several lawmakers were on hand,” but alas, the one who gets the ink is Senate Majority Leader R. Blake Curd, who apparently came to poop on the party (the Muslims’ gathering, not his political party):

Senator Blake Curd said, “What we can see is a meaningful look at the immigration system. The reforms that are necessary.  Making sure that we understand who comes to the United States.  That they are coming here to become a part of that intricate fabric that is the United States to make it a stronger community and a stronger country.  Those are the people that we want here.”

Senator Curd told us, he believes the intention of the resolution is not to discriminate towards any religion [Kole Fehling, “Community Comes Together for Muslims,” KDLT, 2017.03.04].

It takes some pretty strong partisan blinders—or maybe just the smug majoritarianism of a rich white male Christian in South Dakota whose never really experienced an attack on his faith by his community leaders—to not see the ill will toward Islam embodied in the original text of SCR 15 and the current language that brackets one specific religion with negative terms


26 Responses to Muslims and Neighbors Hold Prayer Service Against SCR 15; Curd Brings Blinders

  1. mike from iowa

    Study sez Muslims in America are here for a couple years before they get radicalized, meaning the vetting process and blocking Muslims from certain countries is ineffective.

    The CIA and Homeland Security has explained to our actual Potus Obama and the 2 bogus bogeys-Drumpf and dumbass dubya that calling them Radical Muslim Terrorists does not help our side and insults and infuriates Muslims of all stripes. Drumpf can’t get that through his thick skull or he just doesn’t care what intel tells him because he is smarter than they are.

  2. Charlie Johnson

    Radical Christian terrorism is the cause of fear in this country .

  3. I think there is a fair amount of hypocrisy from both sides on this subject when compared to other issues. Gun loving conservatives freak out any time someone suggests common sense safety measures in gun ownership. “Why punish law abiding gun owners over the actions of few?” Well look in the mirror….

    Same can be said for liberals who stick their heads in the sand on Islam, and refugees in particular. Consistency matters. The first one to figure that out wins.

  4. Irrational fear of the unknown removes man from reality. I can’t think of a time when liberals were actually soft of terror.

  5. mike from iowa

    Chip- yer state needs more workers and a much larger tax base. Telling people willing to move to the state and work and pay taxes to take a hike isn’t helping.

    It would take a hundred years for the immigrants to affect the balance of political parties, if all of them voted for Dems-if that is what wingnuts are worried about.

    Chances of death by a refugee are in the billions to one.
    Citizens with guns coming out their ying yings have no business harboring irrational fears of brown people. It makes them look silly and undermines their argument that more guns make them safer.

  6. mike from iowa

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gdaVw2ni9-0/WKT2xGtq9KI/AAAAAAABkeI/ArPjfBzQNYcYxmRE6-mFSZAcez0D9ZS4QCLcB/s640/x%2Brefugees.png

    3.64 billion to 1 of being killed by a refugee. That is a chance I will gladly take.

  7. It needs saying that three good people stood tall and voted against SCR 15 in the Senate State Affairs Committee; Senators Bill Sutton, Troy Heinert, and Bob Ewing. I’m proud of these shining examples of what Americans ought to be.

  8. barry freed

    Chip,
    Thank God, common sense gun control! We have heard it so much here, but it has always turned out to be hollow words that sound great and mean nothing. Nothing at all. Previous “controls” have only worked on seniors, rape victims, and those who obey Laws.

    Please, quantify, and prove the benefits of these New common sense laws.

    Mike,
    As the Country’s newest Right To Work State, let us welcome you to declining wages and job insecurity. We didn’t know exactly what it was when we got saddled with it a hundred years ago. What is Iowa’s excuse in the enlightened year of 2016?

    As: “Loud pipes save Lives”, “Common Sense Gun Control”, and “Right to Work” are all catchy phrases that sound good, they are not what they imply and actually work to conceal their true damage to society.

  9. Bob Newland

    First, religion poisons everything. ALL religion poisons EVERYTHING.

    Second, one doesn’t actually need to be religious to gain an abiding disgust for Tapio, Bolin, Greenfield, Curd, et. al., and an existential hatred for their politics.

    Not hard to see why someone from just about any other country could get “radicalized” after listening to creatures like that spread their “compassion” for a couple of years.

  10. Do we even know the mental capacity of these refugees? Are they educated? 5th grade level? 9th grade? High school or post secondary? Do we know? Look at the incident in Aberdeen last fall with the refugee and the handicapped woman. That man was obviously not mentally fit to live alone in our society. Some of them need help. There’s no shame in admitting that. To bring them here and not get them the services they need dies nobody any good.

  11. Sorry to take this thread off topic, but in regard to Barry’s question you need to look no further than Australia. To throw your hands up and say there is nothing we can do is no longer acceptable. IMO it starts with liability. First we need to differentiate between guns that are for shooting wild game and guns that are recreational(or self defense if you want to say that). Then anything deemed recreational, which would pretty much include anything that holds more than 5 rounds, needs to be liable to its owner. I don’t care if your two year old grabs it and shoots someone, or your crazy kid or roomate takes it to a mall and shoots a bunch of people, or someone breaks into your home and steals it. It’s your job to keep it safe. If you’re not up to the task, then don’t get one. Also 30 round clips for high powerd rifles should be outlawed in all public places. If you want to keep one under your pillow I don’t care. Heck if your gun range wants to check them out to you while you are there that’s fine. But they are liable if you take it off the premises.

    The next question is who is allowed to own a gun. Definately not anyone convicted of assault. For at least five years. Or stalking, restraining orders, sex offenders, gang violence, basically anything that shows you can’t control your aggression should be suspect.

    How is that for a start?

  12. barry freed

    Chip,
    Why didn’t you apologize when you first went off topic? Now you apologize only to give the impression you are defending yourself. Take responsibility for your actions, going off topic is common.

    I’m sorry to say you are much too ignorant to speak on this subject, none of your solutions would accomplish your goal. You are either not doing enough research, or you are in an echo chamber.
    Today, Australia has more guns than before their ban, all in the hands of 1%ers and criminals. They also have more violent crime than before their ban. Yep, that’s the way to go. Works great in Mexico too.

    You are quite emotional, and that’s a good thing as your heart might be in the right place… you need only to educate yourself and you may be able to meet my challenge for real solutions.

    Every year, we have more and more guns, less and less crime. Now what?

  13. Rural-town halfwits runnin’ round yellin, “them Islams are trying to kill our way of life” have small penis and brains, and they’ve been passing this genetic trait on for generations. I feel sorry for their children – born just about as smart as daddy – taught to think like him – small penis and all.

  14. bearcreekbat

    barry, do you have a credible source for this statement?

    Today, Australia has more guns than before their ban, all in the hands of 1%ers and criminals. They also have more violent crime than before their ban.

    I found this on Snopes:

    Regardless of how much of a cause-and-effect relationship there might be between the NFA and gun deaths in Australia, it’s undeniable that the firearms homicide rate in that country has decreased substantially since the implementation of the NFA. It’s not the case, however, as suggested by the misleading and long out-of-date online piece quoted in the Example block above (which was written way back in 2001) that the overall crime rate in Australia has shot up since the NFA was introduced. The rates of various types of violent crimes (sexual assault, kidnapping, homicides of all types) have scarcely changed at all, and while the robbery rate rose substantially in the 1998-2001 timeframe, it dropped below its pre-NFA level by 2004 and has continually declined since then:

    http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

    And this factcheck article states:

    According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available.

    Furthermore, murders using firearms have declined even more sharply than murders in general since the 1996 gun law. In the seven years prior to 1997, firearms were used in 24 percent of all Australian homicides. But most recently, firearms were used in only 11 percent of Australian homicides, according to figures for the 12 months ending July 1, 2007. That’s a decline of more than half since enactment of the gun law to which this message refers.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

    I was unable to find any supporting evidence, nor a source for the claim, that

    Australia has more guns than before their ban, all in the hands of 1%ers and criminals

    In a June 19, 2015 news story CNN reported as a fact:

    In the years after the Port Arthur massacre, the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia fell by more than 50% — and stayed there. A 2012 study by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University also found the buyback led to a drop in firearm suicide rates of almost 80% in the following decade.
    In the 19 years since the announcement of legislation specifically designed to reduce gun massacres, Australia has seen no mass shootings. . . .

    While there may be arguments about the wisdom of the Australian decision, it might help to determine the facts first. What are your sources that contradict the above factual claims?

  15. barry freed

    I’m on your side, Chip.
    I am rooting for you to find that magic bullet. I just can’t bring myself to endorse actions that have no provable results. i.e: Feel good legislation over: does good.

    I believe focusing the things that reduce crime, which in turn, will reduce murder of ALL types. Things like good schools that serve students as valued customers, finding individual interests that span groups to make learning and attendance desirable. Believing students deserve the best product available. Developing industries and services that provide good jobs that fulfill us, or give us the money to one day start our own business. . With a Health Care Industry that viewed us as valued customers, as the aforementioned Schools, we would have fewer suicides regardless of the vehicle people used, gun. pill, or rope.

    Those are a few of the solutions that show any promise to me, but as I said, I’m rooting for you to do better than I.

  16. Sorry Barry, you seem to have misplaced your facts on all fronts here. I was merely pointing out the thick layer of hypocrisy when comparing the two issues. I never intended to turn this into a gun thread.

    In regard to your misguided assertions about Australia, mass shootings have completely gone away since they passed tougher gun laws.

    https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN0XP0HG

    As for the thought that Australians have more guns than before, true. At least according to this article. Which I’m not going to speak for its accuracy.

    http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-28/australia-has-more-guns-than-before-port-arthur-massacre/7366360?pfmredir=sm

    However if you read the article you will see this:

    “He said the 1996 firearms laws resulted in a “gun swap” as banned rapid-fire rifles and shotguns were replaced with newly imported single-shot firearms.”

    Which would indictate that the law was a huge success in getting rapid-fire rifles off the streets and replacing them with much safer guns. Either way you’re embarrassingly off base here especially considering your feeble attempt to intimidate me on this.

    If you don’t think that gun control laws would help because they only hurt law abiding citizens, keep in mind that mass murders are not generally committed by thugs.

    Better luck next time.

  17. Back on topic… Why is it acceptable to punish all Muslims for the actions of few when it’s not acceptable to punish all gun owners for the actions of what gun owners claim to be few?

  18. barry freed

    Sorry Chip, I don’t see the young African American men killing each other as “thugs”. Like all of us, they are doing what it takes to survive in a ghost town like Detroit or Chicago. Trapped there, most of us would come to do the same in the end. I can not morn them as children as many here do, but I will not judge them for what they do to survive.

    In the Real World: Have you yet made the pilgrimage to Falls Park or Memorial Park after midnight? Make sure you don’t take any spare change with you so you can tell the truth when you say no.

    I won’t hold my breath, no Anti-Rights proponent here has ever done it.

  19. Why do you keep moving the goalposts Barry? I thought we were talking about mass shootings?

    And how about my topic question?

  20. No one has ever proposed a law that would punish all gun owners for the faults of the few. Period.

    No one has EVER proposed the confiscation of guns in the entire history of America, but tiny-penis-toting conservatives seem to think liberals are always try to take people’s guns away.

    Chip, your idea that liberals are trying to punish all gun owners with any specific policy is an old wives tale – void of truth.

  21. Adam, I’m not saying that at all. You really need to re-read my posts.

  22. I went back a re-read your comments, just for you, and you say there is hypocracy on both sides of the gun issue – I am attempting to show you that you are wrong.

    I read your words just fine. You really could have been clearer and less long winded to get your point across.

  23. A quote from me:

    “Why is it acceptable to punish all Muslims for the actions of few when it’s not acceptable to punish all gun owners for the actions of what gun owners claim to be few?”

    I’m not talking about hypocrisy on both sides of the gun issue at all.

  24. Maybe you’ll make better sense next time.