I’m going to apologize in advance for not keeping a civil tone in this essay. Because, really, you’ve got to be kidding me. A ban on Sharia? In Oklahoma? What?
Ok, let’s back up a minute. On Election Day this year in Oklahoma, voters passed a ban on “Sharia law” being used in Oklahoma with about 70% for the ban and 30% against. The entire situation just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Since when has Oklahoma been in danger of falling under the sway of extreme Muslims? And the wording of the statement makes me question the intelligence of the writers of the initiative, even more so than the content: the term “Sharia” means “Islamic law”. If you say “Sharia law” you’re really saying “Islamic law law.” A simple Google search would have told them that. But that would require showing some human decency and integrity, which seems to be at an all time low.
What could have made anyone think that this was a necessary and good law? Besides blatant political pandering to Islamophobes, of course. Well, as you might expect, the answer is fairly bizarre and paranoid. As one flier put it, there is “an international movement, supported by militant Muslims and liberals” to create a worldwide Islamic theocracy. That’s preposterous. Tell me one liberal who supports militant Muslims and a global Caliphate. You can’t though, because there aren’t any. Not that facts are getting in the way of this debate, of course.
One of the state representatives in Ohio who has spearheaded this effort is a man named Rex Duncan, a Republican (of course) from Sand Springs. In 2007, he rejected a gift of a Koran, saying that he did not want to accept a book that endorsed the killing of innocent women and children. You know, that might be the first intelligent thing anyone has said so far on this issue! Hey, let’s expand that, shall we? In the name of American freedom, we should ban all books that say things like “Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed” or “Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants” or “Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed be he who holds back his sword from blood.” But… wait… those sound familiar. I know I’ve seen those somewhere. Oh right! Those are from the Christian bible. Oops.
The local chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations has sued to strike the law. Their argument is that the law violates the first amendment because it singles out a specific religion. It turns out that many religious people, including Jews and Christians, draw up civil documents such as wills and marriage contracts based on their religious laws. The documents are then submitted to the courts to make sure they comply with American law. If this misguided initiative is allowed to stand, then Muslims will not be able to do that. This application of Sharia doesn’t seem so threatening, then.
There is simply no way that Sharia will ever have widespread acceptance in America, except for the very narrow and harmless case I described above. No judge would ever think of sentencing a woman to stoning for adultery, or forcing men to grow facial hair. Stuff like that simply doesn’t happen, and will never happen. People who supported this law as a preemptive strike on activist judges really need to go back and reevaluate their priorities. This country faces a whole host of issues. Luckily, Sharia is not one of them.
This reminds me of when Michelle Obama said she was finally proud to be an American after not being proud for so long, and was hotly criticized for it. I think I finally know how she felt all those years. To be quite honest, I’m a little ashamed of my country right now. We’ve reached a new level of insanity, and I don’t see it abating. I can just see Osama bin Laden doing a little jig in his godforsaken cave somewhere, happy to have more ammunition in his fight against freedom. People who push for laws like this one should be ashamed of themselves. They are embarrassing their country, and unwittingly giving aid to our enemies. I’m so disgusted right now; these words are only the tip of the iceberg. To all of America’s Muslims, I’m offering you my sincerest apologies. You don’t deserve this, and I promise you that freedom loving Americans are going to do everything we can to make this right.
Remind me take UConn off the list of possible schools for my child to consider. I’m just not sure about the water quality, it appears to be tainted with delusional and liberal logic well beyond acceptable PPMs.
As a parting note, let me say that sharia will bite the butts of my liberal friends sooner and harder than those of my conservative friends.
The New Jersey trial judge made a bad decision, and the appellate court rightly corrected him. The point is, though, that the Constitution already gives the appellate court the tools to protect everyone’s civil rights. Statutes that say we can’t use religious laws are redundant and unnecessary because it’s already well established that secular law supersedes anything else. I suggest that naysayers reread the First Amendment and the great body of court cases that support that interpretation.
What NJ trial judge?
That’s the point. The New Jersey judge apparently didn’t think current statutes applied. He ignored them. It’s great that the appellate court reversed his ruling, but, in this case, it’s deeply disturbing that the appellate court had to act at all.
I find it ridiculous that all of you with the exception of Seth use pseudonyms. Speak out for what you believe in, and then then let’s have a candid discussion. Seth, while I find your analysis problematic, I thank you for highlighting this issue (which for the above unknown people is apparently a non-issue).
I find it Orwellian that anonymous expressions are routinely deleted by the comments thread PC gatekeepers.
Western history of private anonymous expression in political dissent is both long and with important effect, as in the Letters of Junius or Voltaire’s Candide. In the tradition of anonymous British political criticism, the Federalist Papers were anonymously authored. Without private discourse on controversial contents of the U.S. Constitution, ratification would likely have taken much longer as individuals worked through the issues.
You call what was deleted political dissent? wow
Unfortunately, these comments were all written from one IP address, one not related to our college. We have deleted the comments and encourage members of the college community to continue responding to Seth’s post.
Dear voice staff,
It would have been better if you had not deleted the comments but still posted stating that they were from one person. Why were the posts deleted? If we need a dialogue, it has to start with the primary assumptions – and now we have no proof that they existed. I would have written a piece in reply, but my subject matter (the deleted responses) is no longer available.
Unfortunately (for you), a comment’s origin has NOTHING to do with the substance of the arguments presented. Shame on the PC gatekeppers for cowering before an intellectual challenge to your comfortable orthodoxy. Enjoy your tiny cloistered existence.
Grade: F
Sorry to see you are so exercised. In fact, though I agree with you that “Sharia” per se will never be the law of the land in the US, there are arguments to be made for the spirit of the law just passed.
The premise is that, while there may be no statute that comports specifically with Sharia (eg. a woman’s opinion being worth half those of man etc), a judge may still feel inclined to give the nod to someone based on his or her religious beliefs and the concern is that existing statutes will, in that situation, be ignored. That’s what happened in New Jersey with the rapist who claimed he had a right, according to the Koran, to force sex on his wife whenever he felt the urge. The judge used the logic that, well, the woman had agreed somewhere along the line to be a Muslim and to marry this guy (well, maybe not) and so she had basically agreed to the terms of her religion’s understanding of marriage obligations. New Jersey statutes be damned! So the judge ruled in favor of the male defendant – a ruling subsequently reversed by an appeals court.
Point is, as ashamed as you are of how stupidly people occasionally act, I’m ashamed of ho some people think they are among the enlightened by pretending that accommodation is the same thing as smart.