Tags

, , , , ,

Hypocrisy Abounds On Both Sides Of This Issue:

In my previous post on Oklahoma passing State Question (SQ) 755, I referenced a spokesperson for the Oklahoma branch of CAIR, Razi Hashmi as stating the following with respect to the new law:

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.”

The next day, Wednesday, CAIR announced that it was considering filing suit because it considers SQ 755 unconstitutional. CAIR stated that it would hold a news conference on Thursday, November 4, 2010 to bring attention to its planned legal action. This begs the question that if “there is no need for any type of Sharia law to operate”, why sue?

I also talked about the role that international law can play with respect to subordinating the law of the land for specific nations or specific persons under signed agreements or treaties. Now consider this from AOL News Surge Desk writer, David Knowles:

‘Here is some of the text of the measure:

“International law is also known as the law of nations. It deals with the conduct of international organizations and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes. It deals with their relationship with each other. It also deals with some of their relationships with persons.

The law of nations is formed by the general assent of civilized nations. Sources of international law also include international agreements, as well as treaties.

Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed”…

“…Constitutional scholars say that the way the law singles out a particular religion violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but also point out that Sharia law has never been used in Oklahoma court decisions anyway.”

‘Many of us who understand the law are scratching our heads this morning, laughing so we don’t cry,” Rick Tepker of the University of Oklahoma Law School told CNN. “I would like to see Oklahoma politicians explain if this means that the courts can no longer consider the Ten Commandments. Isn’t that a precept of another culture and another nation? The result of this is that judges aren’t going to know when and how they can look at sources of American law that were international law in origin.”‘

Xenophobia and Religious Conservatism vs. Political Conservatism:

Newt Gingrich championed Oklahoma SB 755 and the question received over 70% of the vote to impose the ban.

In my original posting, I tried to make the point that when one religion is admitted into the public arena, especially into the courts, it opens the door for all other religions to follow. Similarly, when one religion is excluded from the public square, especially in the courts, it opens the door to excluding all religions or religious influences under the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. This is a conservative political perspective that clashes directly with conservative (extreme) religious views. This split in world view may be the Achilles’ heel that ultimately splits the disparate TEA party groups.

Now we have yet another statement that demonstrates the wisdom of exempting religion from the politics of state under the establishment clause:

“I would like to see Oklahoma politicians explain if this means that the courts can no longer consider the Ten Commandments. Isn’t that a precept of another culture and another nation? [ED Jewish law handed down from Moses as described in the Old Testament and Torah]. The result of this is that judges aren’t going to know when and how they can look at sources of American law that were international law in origin.“

While this posting and its sourcing may not convince you that religion in America should be a private matter and a private practice, it’s practice and import to practitioners must be protected regardless of form or origin. If any religion or the evocation of a specific religion by way of symbolism is accepted into the public square, all religions must be equally accepted and with so many competing and conflicting forms and sects, incorporating all religion into the public square, especially the courts, is impossible. Therefore, all religion must remain private to the individual and to likeminded groups and cannot expect or receive a preferential view under the law or in public opinion when it comes to policy.

I’m sure many of you recall the fight over the 10 Commandments inside the Supreme Court of Alabama and Chief Justice Roy Stewart Moore and his refusal to remove them from the court:

“When Moore’s tenure as circuit judge began, he brought his wooden Ten Commandments plaque with him, hanging it on the walls of his courtroom behind his bench. Moore told the Montgomery Advertiser that his intention in hanging the plaque was to fill up the bare space on the courtroom walls and to indicate the importance of the Ten Commandments. He states that it was not his intention to generate controversy; still, as he told the Atlantic, he understood that the potential for controversy was there, but “I wanted to establish the moral foundation of our law.”

>

Lessons That Should Have Already Been Learned

What Moore forgot was that the law was written to be applied equally to all citizens regardless of race, creed or national origin. Even though he was the Chief Justice of an important state court; it was not his job to “establish the moral foundation of our law”. That was done by our founding fathers when they wrote the establishment clause giving equality to all religious practices and preventing the government from favoring one over another as was the case with King George III and the Anglican Church of England.

The proof of the intent of the establishment clause rests in the fact of history that many people chose to suffer hardships to come to America because it was a land where they were guaranteed religious freedom without fear of oppression. It took a while to break from the tyranny of the Puritans and the restrictions to those not of Protestant or Anglican faith, but ultimately, religious freedom succeeded in America and it should succeed for Muslims who live and abide by the rule of United States law just as all other religions have had to do.

The Oklahoma law does not conform to the history of religious freedom in America, and it appears to reflect more fear and prejudice than genuine concern over the rule of law. The correct way to avoid integrating Sharia or any other religion into the law is to strictly embrace and support the establishment clause and demand that no treaty or other international agreement be signed where the decision regarding the place of religion in the courts rests in the hands of anyone other than the United States courts. Sometimes when one brushes aside important principles for expediency, one gets the very problem that he or she sought to avoid and them some.

America is a nation of laws. It should also be a nation of principles held to, lived by and enforced no matter how inconvenient it may be to do the right thing. That is what my teachers taught me and that is what I have taught my children and grand-children. I hold a great admiration for all who have done the same.