Religious Influences or a Purely Secular Government

Did you know that while the Republicans were making historic gains in terms of number of seats won in the United States House of Representatives, Oklahoma voters engaged in another battle that potentially has a greater impact on individual liberty and the rule of law? State Question 755 (SQ 755) passed and it prohibits Oklahoma courts from allowing the use of sharia law to decide cases.

The law is a constitutional amendment and it passed with an overwhelming 70% of voters in favor. However, this constitutional change may not be the outcome that Oklahomans sought. An October 7, 2010 poll showed that 45% were in favor, 25% opposed and 30% were undecided. Two major newspapers editorialized against the law change, and, of course, the local affiliate of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called the measure “Islamophobia propaganda”.

Some members of CAIR have said that they never expect United States courtrooms to consider sharia; as Americans, they expect to be both judged and protected under the law of the land: the United States Constitution. However, shortly after passage of SQ 755, CAIR filed a lawsuit to invalidate this change to the Oklahoma Constitution. Why is a lawsuit to repeal SQ 755 necessary if it has no impact on the application of sharia law in Oklahoma courts? CAIR representative, Razi Hashmi describes sharia as a collective code of ethics by which Muslims live. That code derives from the teachings of the Quran and the Prophet Mohammed.

Hashmi states:

“Obviously, we understand the separation of church and state, and people wouldn’t argue those are bad things,” he said. “If Sharia operated in context of the court, it couldn’t supersede the law of the land, the U.S. Constitution. There is no need for any type of Sharia law to operate.”

However, Hashmi also states:

The author of the bill, Oklahoma State Representative Rex Duncan, (R-Sand Springs) did so out of a fear that sharia law could weave itself into United States courtrooms from the likes of justices such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg who invite the consideration of international law in deciding cases:

There is an obvious contradiction between Hashmi’s statements that he understands the separation of church and state and that sharia law is a way to “get closer to god” as opposed to the pursuit of justice based upon the facts and the rule of law and not on faith based documents or imperatives. Of course, CAIR would like to influence U.S. Courts by introducing a creeping sharia by encouraging views, such as Justice Ginsburg’s, that when decisions involving differences in religion become difficult that it is acceptable to turn to international law for a solution. Included in international law is the law of sharia.

Here is the crux of the matter. Religion or religious differences should have no bearing in the outcome of a legal decision. We have laws designed to protect individual liberty, property, to life and the pursuit of happiness, and we have a constitution that guides judges into fair, impartial and logical decisions intended to deliver justice under the law. In America, we base our laws on facts and evidence. Rule of law and established procedure determine what evidence or fact is admissible and how to present such evidence or fact in the course of a trial or hearing.

Evidence based upon faith leads to decisions such as those found in the Salem witch trials or the Spanish Inquisition. We’ve all read how damaging, destructive and unjust such courts were, and hopefully, we understand why faith must be left out of the public court and restricted to a private, more personal source of strength (or not) depending upon the individual(s) in question.

It becomes difficult to convince Muslims, Seventh Day Adventists, Buddhists, and other non-Christians that equal protection under the law, regardless of religion, will prevail. This is especially difficult when they walk into a courtroom, a town hall, or a police station ornamented with Christian symbolism. Using the bible as an instrument for swearing to tell the truth is unnecessary and a further reason for doubting a fair hearing for non-Christians will be forthcoming. When symbols of Christianity are used as a threat of punishment in secular matters, it demeans the faith of those possessing non-Christian values.

The threat of real punishment for violation of the rule of law – to speak truthfully – should be more than sufficient. The pledge of allegiance to the nation is sufficient without the “so help me God” phrase – it is a pledge, not a contract or a legally binding statement and for those who do not believe in God or the majority interpretation of who God is; the phrase is meaningless. When a nation adopts a fear of a God as more important than the rule of law in governing, that nation is will ultimately fail to safeguard liberty for all.

Even among Christians, it is relatively easy for suspicions of a pending injustice to grow. Many considered President Kennedy, a Christian Catholic, as unfit for the Office of President because, as a subject of the Pope, he might work to impose the Catholic doctrine of his sovereign instead of behaving as the sovereign of our nation, built upon Protestant principles. More recently, those who paid attention to the 2008 Republican primary election saw attacks on former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney for his Christian Mormon beliefs.

Consider how little confidence one might have regarding child custody outcomes where the husband is a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints and his wife is Protestant. Consider the suspicions a Protestant may have about a judge were he or she to see a portrait of the Pope in chambers. Like politics, religion is personal, deeply felt by those of strong faith and possesses differences among sects that can ignite the sort of rage we saw in Northern Ireland and what we see regarding the war on terror between a Christian nation and Islamic fundamentalists/terrorists. Muslim groups terrorize each other as evidenced by the atrocities perpetrated by Shiite groups on Sunni Muslims and visa versa.

The Middle Ages concept of a Christendom (a combination of Church and State as shared supreme lawgivers) was no less strident or violent than the modern version of Islamofascism. Both aimed at global domination and subjugation of individual rights and liberties to the unquestioned and unimpeachable power of both the Church and the State.

When public buildings and places are ornamented with symbols of Christianity and the state refuses to revoke the privilege under the concept of separation of church and state, invariably, symbols of all other religions are added to demonstrate equal access and equal protection of all religions under the law. Eventually, by allowing religious symbols and celebrations of all sorts in the public arena in place of areas privately supported, the influences of all religions will make their way into other aspects of governance, including the courts.

The Influence of International Treaties and International Law Agreements

Consider also that over time, the United States has signed on to a number of international treaties and has accepted to some degree the authority of the World Court. This tendency to follow along with international law instead of working to protect established U.S. law and principles works to open the door to U. S. courts having no choice but to hear cases based upon principles foreign to the United States Constitution and nationally established legal principle and decisions. As this article clearly states:

From my perspective, separation of church and state is a vital imperative to securing individual rights and liberties. This has been a difficult enough position to gain universal agreement and enforcement without our own boundaries. Unless we settle this domestically and choose to accept a purely secular government domestically, we stand almost no chance of preventing religion from whatever source from entering into legal decisions and their aftermaths.