Abe Foxman is at it again. The head of the Anti Defamation League must be thinking of merging his organization with CAIR. Now Foxman is speaking out against Americans who have expressed concern about the possible inroads of sharia law into US laws. He thinks it's hysterical and bigoted. I disagree.
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/08/10/3088943/op-ed-shout-down-the-sharia-myth-makers
On the surface, it would appear that our Constitution and separation of church and state would make any intrusion of sharia into US law unthinkable. Yet this is a process that would be slow and gradual. I am one who chooses to take Islamic radicals at their word. They intend to take over our country and place it under Islamic law. Not all of them intend to do it violently. Many more realistic individuals like Faisal Rauf and Muzammil Siddiqi realize it is a long process that they will likely never live to see. Yet, they envision the day when it can be accomplished by immigration, demographics and da'wa. Are they delusional? Perhaps. Rauf maintains (and he said it at UCLA in my presence) that sharia law is perfectly in conformance with the US Constitution. That drew guffaws from even that friendly audience.
Yet consider that Great Britain has already begun to acquiescece to sharia courts for civil matters within certain Muslim communities. No less a figure than Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury has conceded that shariah law in some form is an eventuality. Williams, by the way, is a fool.
Would it really be so unimaginable that a community like Dearborn could, in a politically-correct climate under the Obama administration, get approval either from a friendly Justice Department or liberal judge to set up small family/civil sharia courts? You know, what's the harm?
The harm is that we would be abandoning American Muslims, especially females to a sysem of law that is antithetical to our constitution. Remember the case of Rifqa Bari in Ohio? Would we allow that case to be settled within the local Muslim community in a sharia court? Rifqa, a 17-year-old convert to Christianity, ran away from her family and fled to Florida afraid for her life. She is 18 now and free to live alone.
Those who want to bring sharia to the US know that it would be a long, slow and gradual process that would have to be accompanied by having an increasing Muslim percentage of the population. Constitutionally impossible? I would be willing to bet that there are 4 liberal judges on the Supreme Court right now who would vote in favor of allowing such a small court system to be set up in places like Dearborn.
The bottom line is that sharia is incompatible with our laws and concepts of freedom and equality. It would seem obvious that it could never happen here. However, never underestimate the power of liberal judges to make their own law according to their own vision of what the law should be-not how it is. Again, we already have a couple of Supreme Court justices who like the idea of using laws of other countries to "buttress" our own. It is important that the camel not even get its nose under the tent; hence, we see attempts to head it off at various state levels. It may seem unnecessary now, but who knows ten or twenty years down the road?
Foxman may think that people are paranoid or bigoted, but I would bet there are a lot of Muslims who came here to get away from sharia and who have no desire to see it come to America. I suggest Mr Foxman get back to the job of fighting anti-Semitism. He has a lot of work to do.
"Would it really be so unimagiinable that a community like Dearborn could, in a politically-correct climate under the Obama administration, get approval either from a friendly Justice Department or liberal judge to set up small family/civil sharia courts?"
ReplyDeleteNo. It doesn't even matter whether it would hurt or not. The City of Dearborn has no authority to do that, the State of Michigan has no authority to do that, the Justice Department has no authority to do that, and the President of the United States has no authority to do that.
England doesn't HAVE a First Amendment, and I would agree that Archbishop Rowan is a fool. But you are being paranoid.
The closest thing to your nightmare likely to happen is that two Muslims getting married might enter into a contract that their marriage will be governed by Sharia, and agree in advance to mediation by some body at their local mosque.
American legal precedents would tolerate that as a voluntary private contract, BUT, it could be challenged later on the ground that one party did not freely enter into the contract, OR if the practical ramifications violate public policy.
As for the long view: IF the day comes when a sufficient majority of the American population are devout Muslims, so that two thirds of both houses of Congress and three fourths of the state legislatures graft some version of Sharia into constitutional amendments, that will be the free choice of The People of the United States. But if you believe THAT will ever happen, you have no faith at all in your own faith, in the American people, or in constitutional democracy.
If Sharia is OK with the Archbishop of Canterberry it should be OK FOR US.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3328024.ece
Private voluntary contracts do not have any legal effect if they violate the laws of the U.S. in any way. They are not enforceable and whatever flowed from them would governed solely by our laws. The only things religious laws or religious courts can decide are matters within their own religion. Who is recognized as an ordained priest, for example, is up to the church not the state.
ReplyDeleteDavod,
ReplyDeleteYour link doesn't come up, so I'll have to take your comment literally. What is good for the Archbishop (who is an idiot) is not good for America.
Once again, Miggie echoes what I said. Whether he thinks he's arguing with me is not evident from his statement.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if I echo you or not. I try not to read any of your posts because it is a waste of time. Sometimes something outrageous of yours pops up and I make the mistake of responding.
ReplyDeleteMiggie, you are bold-faced lying. (I try not to say that anyone "is a liar" because I am only talking about the instant case, I don't know you well enough to judge your life and character).
ReplyDeleteYour comments fall into two categories: praising Gary, and fencing with me. You only say its a waste of time to read my comments AFTER you read and furiously respond to them. LOL as the kids say.