Saturday, September 4, 2010

American Sharia

The idea of Sharia law makes my stomach turn and by head get dizzy. Images of people getting their hands chopped off and women having their faces disfigured with acid run through my mind in waves of nausea. So, when I hear someone making the case to incorporate Sharia law into the American judicial system, my involuntary reaction is to scream, get angry, and spit on the ground.

Dr. Gene Davenport, Professor Emeritus of Religion at Lambuth University thinks that a weak version of Sharia law should be incorporated to help relieve the strain on the judicial system by allowing certain judgments to be given by Sharia courts.
The acceptance of Sharia courts in this country's legal system would not be without precedent. In some parts of the country Jewish courts (Beth Din) arbitrate in matters of small claims and millions of dollars, employee-employer disputes, breach of contract, inheritance, and matrimonial disputes. Such courts serve, in other words, as arbitration courts, the decisions of which are recognized by the secular courts as long as those decisions are in keeping with the Constitution and with the laws of the state in which the religious court resides. And decisions in religious courts always can be challenged in state courts.
First of all, I know about the Jewish courts and I think that they have made it possible for any religious group to have their own courts. I think it is disgusting. I do not care how overburdened the judicial system is. One way to free up a lot of the case load of the courts would be to legalize drugs, but that is a different story. The idea of allowing even a watered-down version of Sharia law, like England has, is wretched, disgusting, and stupid.

Arguments over mosques and their location in reference to a hole in the ground are diverting our attention away from real problems, like incorporating Sharia courts into the judicial system. I do not care what your religion says you should do or what laws you should live by. This is a country of laws, SECULAR LAWS.
Even various Christian denominations have arbitration systems that are recognized by the secular courts. In some denominations, if a group decides to break away from the denomination, the ownership of the church property is determined by church law and is recognized by the secular courts. (And one hesitates to mention the numerous courts on television such as that of Judge Judy.)
How does Judge Judy, and actual judge, compare in any way to religious courts? I admit that I am not a fan of parading the judicial system on TV like some sort of sideshow at the circus, but that doesn’t mean it should be compared to any kind of religious court. The last time I checked, as vile a person as Judge Judy may be, she still upholds the secular laws of this country. Also, respecting property rights is not a religious idea. I am fairly sure that property rights are part of the secular laws of this country.
In light of the attitudes of the majority of Muslims in this country today, it might be expected that the interpretation of Sharia in their courts would be enlightened, just and reflective of Western attitudes and values. Such courts certainly would relieve the current case overload in the secular courts.
You know what else would be enlightening? Having everyone that lives in this country abide by the laws of this country. It doesn’t matter if you worship the Sun, Jesus, or a pile of dirt, you are under the jurisdiction of the United States of America, not the Theocratic Kingdom of America. Saying that there are certain interpretations of Sharia law that would be reflective of western values is the same as saying that there are certain interpretations of the anarchist cookbook that are reflective of a dictatorship.

If you water down Sharia to any point, it is still a religious code that will apply to only a certain group of people. That is not what this country is about. That is why we don’t have Ten Commandment Courts. So remember this, all of you slack-jawed morons out there who think that we need no separation of church and state. Without the separation, there are going to be idiotic things like “liberal” Sharia, Jewish Law, Christian Law, etc. that are going to be absorbed little-by-little into the justice system. At that point, we can just change the name to the Injustice Department and give in to whatever theocratic dictator comes to prominence.

Sharia =/= Secular Values.



  1. Amazing that people just don't realize that our nation's Constitution was a product of the Enlightenment.

    If more people understood that, I think a lot of the nonsense that people spout about wanting to marry religion and the State would cool down.

    They simply don't know what they're asking for when they make demands like that.

  2. Will

    well said sir! I am a Brit, and find that we have only just learned about the presence of "stealth Sharia" and the way our politicians sold our system out a matter of deep abiding shame. still, there is a groundswell of anger in the UK that hopefully will see the bararians swept back into the sea....given that such courts directly contradict our legal system and laws.

    @ Uruk

    mate, Mr Jefferson being the great historian and philosopher he was incorproated or mirrored elements of pre-Enlightenment documents as well... read The Treaty of Arbroath or Concords of Oxford/Magna Carta and The Levellers Charter from the English Civil War.... he did. There are also elements of Paines work in there, and a lot of Mason common sense as well. These were great men with a good understanding of the historical struggles of common men for self determination.

    The Treaty of Arbroath in particular may raise a tear... does with me. A very very very distant ancestor of mine signed it see.


  3. soory...should smoke less weed I guess.

    Its the Declaration of Arbroath...and heres the bit that raises a tear:

    "...for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom – for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

    Sounds familiar eh?