Bruce Bawer in Pajamas Media has written a very effective response to a recent op-ed in the NY Times by Eliyahu Stern, in which Stern criticizes efforts by various states to pass legislation that would prevent any future aspect of Sharia law from getting into state law. The NYT op-ed is contained in the below-linked Pajamas Media response.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/outrageous-ny-times-op-ed-defends-sharia-law-in-u-s/
It is hard to improve on Bawer's response, but I would like to add a couple of brief arguments. First of all, the protections of the US Constitution apply to every person in this country. There are no exceptions due to religion. Therefore, every Muslim in this country is entitled to certain rights-which are not subject to being in conformance with Sharia. For example, if a Muslim decides to renounce his or her faith, that right is guaranteed. Aside from family or community disapproval, there can be no repercussions against that person. Under Sharia, the penalty is death. Stern made a reference to theological assimilation, which indeed is a normal fact of life when peoples immigrate. The case of Asian immigrants to America who have converted from say, Buddhism to Christianity, is illustrative. There have been many, and they have done so freely. The same natural progression should be available to assimilated Muslim immigrants. Suffice to say that Sharia law is a giant obstacle to them as we see few conversions from Islam. This in no way is to imply that American Muslims ought to convert-only that they should have that right if they wish without fear of harm.
Marital issues can also be problematic. There is a reason why the state has a hand in recognizing marriage. There are many legal issues involved including property and children. Are we to deny Muslim women the same civil law rights we afford other American women in favor of certain tenets of Sharia? No. For example, if a Muslim woman wants to leave her marriage and keep custody of her children, she should have the same legal right as any other woman.
In summary, like it or not, we have to understand that Shariah is designed to govern every aspect of a believer's life-whether a certain government law agrees with it or not. There are aspects of Sharia that are in conflict with our ideals of freedom. Efforts to put protections in state laws against the intrusion of Sharia are not motivated by anti-Muslim bias; they are motivated by a desire to insure that everyone-Muslims included- enjoy the Constitutional protections of our laws.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Thanks for putting up the response to the NY Times editorial. It was as logical and persuasive as it could be. I don't see how you can have one group of "citizens" within a country following a separate set of laws for themselves. As he points out, it is hardly limited to dietary and family laws.
Gary, you continue to pontificate on what Shariah means, when you have neither knowledge nor authority to do so. There are plenty of Muslim authorities who say that a Muslim who converts to another religion is subject to a penalty of death, and plenty who do not. Some will accept that in a Muslim majority state with an established religion it could be, but don't insist on it as an act o vigilante faith in a state where it is not. And there is NO single definition of what "Shariah" consists of, as you continue to infer.
We don't NEED "state laws" against "Shariah" -- which no legislator knows how to define anyway -- becoming legally "established." It is, for the very reasons you outline, constitutionally impermissible here. These "state laws" are grandstanding at best -- although Muslim organizations may well take comfort in supporting such legislation, just to make clear they have no intention of seeking such a status.
What does "The Cairo Declaration" have to do with law in the United States? The United States is not a signator. The countries that signed the declaration may well adhere to it, as is their sovereign right. We don't. End of story.
I don't see anything in the NY Times Op-Ed that is not well founded and well reasoned. The beddy-bye kiddies in the Pajamas are creating bogeymen again to see how scared they can make each other. Of course a Muslim woman in America can go to a civil court and file for divorce. Likewise, her husband who text messages her a divorce will find he has to hand over half the marital property, or he will find himself in court -- in fact, he will anyway.
Who came up with this absurd notion that an American court is going to defer to some scriptural text and that will be upheld on appeal? The only area of American law that defers to church law is disposition of church property -- and that is because courts CANNOT rule on matters of faith and doctrine, so they avoid becoming involved in inner-church disputes by acknowledging whatever the church's highest judicatory body says about CHURCH property, not the civil rights of church members. Read some case law sometime.
Post a Comment