When a White Christian blew up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City killing 168 people, children among them, the immediate reaction was to blame Muslims and harass the local Muslim community. Even after it was established that Muslims were not involved, but White, native born Christian men were, going after Muslims did not die down. Muslims became the new bogey man for politicians to use to get votes.

No actions were taken against White Christians because, well, the majority of the population and politicians were in that group and identified with them.

I was there and saw this.

A few years later, the World Trade Center was brought down and the simmering Islamophobia reignited into full flame.

Among the actions taken to keep control over Muslims and to prevent them from “taking over the country”, laws were passed that targeted them, none more unnecessary or ridiculous as the one that outlawed the use of Sharia law as the basis of any court case filed in the state or used as a reason to indict or exonerate a person accused of a crime.

Laws to this effect were proposed and/or enacted in many states.

No one was using Sharia in court cases so there was no  need for this to be stopped, and no one was brought to court for violating it either.

It was all a grand show to promote bigotry and give voters the impression that legislators were protecting their constituents so those who lied the loudest could get into or stay in office.

Meanwhile, laws were being passed because they we in synch with the Christian Bible.

It seemed that while one religion’s laws should not influence the courts, another specific Christian denomination’s interpretation of the bible was permissible.

Those who were not adherents to the beliefs of the Southern Baptist Church were routinely being forced to follow its rules, regardless of their own religion, or lack thereof, through legislation.

I came across a recent example of the not so subtle appeal to justifying Christian Sharia in our courts, where to question how one’s strongly held religious beliefs, believed by that person to supersede law, should not be seen as a detriment to justice even as they could influence the application of law.

Justin Jones, 23, is a Vanderbilt University divinity student and a protester behind a series of recent demonstrations at the Tennessee state Capitol who has been charged with two counts of misdemeanor assault and one count of disorderly conduct after he threw a paper cup containing what has been determined to be iced tea into an elevator, striking House Speaker Glen Casada and Representative Debra Moody during a protest of the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Confederate general and early Ku Klux Klan leader that sits in the State House.

He has been banned from the building.

She can’t reach orgasm and she doesn’t want to get caused by erectile dysfunction but there is a product which is known to cause weight gain. without prescription viagra This drug belongs to a class of medicines called type II 5-alpha reductase inhibitors. 5-alpha reductase is an enzyme that prevents men from achieving an erection. http://deeprootsmag.org/category/departments/deep-roots-theater/page/2/?feedsort=date non prescription viagra neutralizes the effects of this enzyme to a significant degree, allowing men to achieve an erection upon arousal. This india pharmacies levitra medicine works better only when an individual consuming it is sexually excited. The action in the HIFU is comparable towards the action of focusing discount order viagra sunlight through a magnifying lens. He released a statement that he prays “that the violence of racism will produce similar outrage in the TN Capitol as a few drops of iced tea in a paper cup.”

Previously Jones disrupted a House Republican news conference on healthcare while trying to get Casada’s attention, after having led a sit-in in Casada’s office with other students.

When Jones’s defense objected to Coffee County District Attorney Craig Northcott prosecuting the case because Northcott’s claims that the application of law does not apply to same-sex couples and Muslims displayed a bias,  Northcott claimed his First Amendment rights of religion and political viewpoint were being violated.

D.A. Northcott holds that God does not recognize the marriages of same-sex couples, so domestic violence laws and protections do not apply, and as Muslim do not worship the “one true God”, they do not have religious rights.

He claimed that the attempts to remove him from his case are “constitutionally repugnant” because those who want him removed from the case

 “are trying to impose on me a religious and political test for serving in my office, for conducting my job.”

He also claimed his critics simply don’t “like” his “theological and political beliefs” which apparently is justification to deal with the law according to the belief that the application of First Amendment freedoms to protest and petition the government to redress grievances does not apply to same-sex couples and Muslims because that is the law and laws do not apply to them.

Although Jones may not fit into either of those categories, his case involved the application of the First Amendment freedoms to protest and petition the government to redress grievances.

As Jones’ attorney, Nick Leonardo, told the judge when requesting the removal of Northcott,

“This case is every bit about race and equality and marginalized populations.  And with those sorts of views, judge, it’s impossible for Mr. Jones to get a fair trial.”

Remember, Jones had been protesting a bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Confederate general and early Ku Klux Klan leader that sits in the State House, and his being barred from the State House effectively silences his protest of its presence and that he is, himself, a member of the minority group Forrest targeted.

As his job is to determine what charges to prosecute, the D.A.’s religious beliefs might result in discriminatory behavior.

And, since the judge said she did not have the authority to remove Northcott, in this and in other cases, the prosecutor’s religious beliefs could deny people justice while his beliefs may take precedence over established law.

As Northcott said in explaining his application of Christian-like Sharia to his position as District Attorney,

“You cannot understand the Constitution without understanding the Bible because the Constitution was written to protect the principles contained in the Bible. I made the fact that I am a Christian and will rely on my Biblical viewpoint in making decisions on how I do my job well known.”

It is not just the attorney in this case that has objections to his preference of his religion over local, state, and federal laws, but those lawyers who are within his jurisdiction have called for his removal.