The Logic Behind Banning Sharia Law

Many of us chuckle at the bill introduced in the South Carolina House that would ban sharia law from our courts.  The misunderstanding that has led to outright paranoia in America has served as red meat to the right-wing Christian base of the republican party, as well as other extremist political groups.  Sharia law is no more or less than Islamic law, and has in some countries and cultures been moderate and affirming, in others radical and destructive.  Just as has Christianity in this country.

Fortunately for us, the Establishment Clause of our Constitution has held back the tyrants of the Old Testament as well as allowed other beliefs (yes, including atheism) to grow freely.  But not without a fight.  And the conservative tide in this country has made the separation of church and state ever more tenuous.

Too many of our legislators, both in the state and in Congress, know about that slippery slope.  They navigate it pretty well these days, in the hope of opening the door to making Christianity -- their view of Christianity -- the national religion.  One law at a time.  Prayer -- what harm could it do?  Using fake science rather than calling on religion to defend bans on abortion and contraception.  And of course whining that by allowing us all to live freely we are taking away the rights of the Christian.

The bill introduced by Chip Limehouse to ban sharia law has been mocked, but be wary because it hasn't gone away.  The debate will continue next week.  The fear underlying the paranoia is that if in Moslem communities they are allowed to follow their own religious laws, and that can be defended in court, the courts will become the servant of sharia law.

Just as Limehouse and his ilk would like to happen with Christianity.  If these radical legislators have their way, extremist Christian moral views could herald a whole new era of blue laws, laws that expressly reflect religious views, and not just on Sunday any more.  Bans against homosexuality, contraception, interracial dating, followed by laws against certain types of dress and behavior and music, and then restrictions on movement in the street.

Ridiculous?  We've had lately some variation of all those bills in the US, mostly at this point allowing businesses to do the banning and restricting.  And while the five two-hundred year old justices of the Supreme Court exercise their pointy heads about whether the Founding Fathers would have wanted the federal government to make laws that invade the rights of businesses, that door continues to open.

Here's the thing.  Once that door is open to allowing extremist Christian beliefs to determine the law, it will set the precedent for other radical religious views to be accepted.  Hence, the need to specifically ban the rules of other religions, the most notorious and threatening today being sharia law.

The message being that there is only room in US law for one dogmatic tyrannical religious rule and that rule is Old Testament Christianity.

So chuckle if you will, but be aware that on Tuesday our lawmakers are going to be engaged in a heated debate that could close the door to freedom of religion for communities with views different than radical Christian, and that includes atheist and moderate Christian.  Thus opening the door wide for "Christian" rule in our courts.

And that is why it has become so important to ban sharia law.

Debate on this bill, H 3521, will be continued in the full House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.  Please go to scstatehouse.gov and follow the links to email all members.  Because there are representatives who have signed on to the bill that are not on the committee (and more than one member has already withdrawn their names), I think it makes sense to contact all.  Let them know that our courts follow US law and that this bill is not just unnecessary but a senseless attack on a major religion.  

The Stuff of Fiction

I am less likely today to believe that American democracy is foolproof than I was before the turn of the century.  Strange circumstances have upset the balance of what should be a strong and balanced system of government.  Until we lived through it, I doubt we would have thought believable the "election" of George W. Bush in 2000 by the Supreme Court.  Without the swaggering and incompetent Bush administration, I believe the perpetrators of 9/11 would have been caught before the attack, and consequently, without 9/11, there would certainly have been no second term for this idiot president and his evil minions.

So when I read Christian Nation by Frederic C. Rich, I did not chuckle at the absurdities of its premise.  Like Philip Roth's The Plot Against America and Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here, this work of fiction sets up an alternative history in which just that strange bit of credible chance leads to the falling of our democracy.

What if John McCain had won in 2008 and then died in office?  In ordinary times we would not foresee a takeover by Christian fundamentalists.  Yet here we are, where during the Bush years promotion to federal positions were granted to graduates of Christian diploma mills and anti-science agendas were pursued with confidence, and some troubling successes.

And now, despite a more rational leader, we have seen states take on the fight to ban abortion, to form state militias, to legislate against science.  We have an immobilized Senate and a radical right-wing House; our Supreme Court majority boldly rewrites the Constitution to an agenda that they claim is conservative, but is actually so only when convenient.  And we have a gun lobby that is untouchable.

We attempt to resist through democratic means the tyranny of these radical forces, who fight tirelessly in the name of their Christian god.  But where we fight with rationality and restraint, our opponents are enflamed not by the light of logic but by the irrational fire of fear and greed and hate and fueled by the dollars of corporate wealth.

Could it happen here?  

It's a gripping book, and I urge you to read it.