Why Conservatives want Sharia Law even while they condemn it.

Forums: Religion, Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

As part of the kneejerk hatred of anything Muslim, there has been quite a bit of worry about "Sharia" law. This has included political rhetoric from such candidates as Sharon Angle (making a crazy claim about American cities) and Christine O'Donnell. There is also an amendment to the state Constitution in Oklahoma to ban Sharia law which will probably pass, and will almost certainly be overturned since it breaks the First Amendment by singling out one religion while ignoring another.

Being the open minded man I am, I looked at the arguments saying that this so-called "Sharia Law" was a threat in the US. There are two cases that are raise. One is a case of spousal rape which was overturned on appeal. The second was a case of silencing protesters at a religious festival in Dearborn Michigan.

This is the odd thing.

Several prominent Christian Conservatives have spoken against prosecuting cases of spousal rape. And Christian Conservatives are happy to silence protesters who offend religious sensitivities.

So I am imagining what it would be like if we had Sharia Law.

- Gay marriage would be banned, and homosexual rights would be ignored.
- Divorce would be discouraged. Spousal rape would be considered a domestic issue.
- People would be stopped from offending religious sensitivities.
- Abortion would be illegal.
- Religion would be a key part of public life and would inform policy decisions.

Isn't this exactly what Conservative Christians want?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 1,349 • Replies: 19

No top replies

@maxdancona,

The problem with Sharia Law is that it makes it a law for Muslims to follow which conflicts with democracy. The practice of genital multilation, honor killing and wearing of various sexist garbs such as burqa are enforced. If not allowed then it gives Muslims the choice to follow it. There is nothing forbidding Muslims to follow it on their own accord. The enactment of Sharia Law gives them no choice.

Banning it would make it worse. Just arrest those committing acts forbidden by the laws of country.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Conservative Americans (like ME)
and conservative Christians are 2 different things.

The subject-matter of the conservations is not the same.

David

0 Replies

@talk72000,

Sharia law is the idea that religious teachings and morals should inform and affect laws. Genital Mutilation has nothing to do with Sharia law. Honor killing and sexist customs are no more a problem with Muslim Sharia law then it is Christian "Sharia" law.

This is a moot point with the current use of the term "Sharia" in todays political debate. Honor killings are not allowed in any Western country even where supposedly "Sharia law" has already taken place, for example Great Britain. The idea that honor killings will ever be legally sanctioned in the US is ridiculous.

There is an interesting issue whether religious people should be able to submit themselves to a contractual agreement that would legally obligate them to follow religious tenets.

Again, Christian conservatives want exactly this. Three states in the US now allow this type of "Covenant marriage" specifically designed for Christians who want to be bound by their religion.

My point is that Muslim "Sharia" law is no different then Christian "Sharia" law of Jewish "Sharia" law, all of which are tolerated in Western Societies.

The difference is that anti-Muslim hatred is rather popular right now.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

All religious laws should be voluntary. It is the religions that bring in the abuses. Remember the Inquisition. Sharia Law should be practised in Muslim countries not in democracies. Those barbarous acts shouldn't be allowed in democracies.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

You entire thread's thesis is assuming that these conservative Christians are rational and levelheaded enough to see and understand their own blatant hypocrisy. Of course their beliefs basically parallel those of their fundamentalist Muslim militant reactionaries.

They however are culturally and ideologically incapable of making this connection.

0 Replies

@talk72000,

Quote:

Sharia Law should be practised in Muslim countries not in democracies. Those barbarous acts shouldn't be allowed in democracies.

Well, there is Sharia law, meaning laws based on a religious text whether it is the Bible or the Koran, exist in many democracies including our own. Note the current debates over same sex marriage and abortion are largely based on what the Bible teaches.

Do you know about Convenant Marriage? This is a Christian movement to allow a couple to enter into a stricter version of marriage based on Biblical teachings. Covenant marriage is now part of the law in several US states.

There is a number of people in the US who believe that the law is, and should be, based on the Bible.

0 Replies

Let 's be clear that the Founders of this Republic were NOT theocrats.
A citizen is a conservative (i.e., an orthodox observer of the US Constitution, with no deviation therefrom)
if his views are those of the Founders of that instrument.

Because Pat Robertson IS a theocrat, he is thereby deviant from
the secular views of of the Founders: hence, he is a liberal.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Pat Robertson is, as are you a conservative idiot.

1 Reply

@rabel22,

rabel22 wrote:

Pat Robertson is, as are you a conservative idiot.

An idiot has a mental age below 3 years; your claim is very doubtful.
A conservative is a non-deviant person,
like an accountant who does not deviate from accuracy and perfection.
Conservatives just play it straight, like we r supposed to.
U condemn us for failing to join u in falling into errors.

The lack of merit of your claims is facially evident.
Happy Halloween.

David

0 Replies

The Sharia isn't law in America. There is nothing for American conservatives--political or religious--to ban. The only role the Sharia can play in America is in private, out-of-court arbitration. I don't see how that's a problem. When parties make a contract, and all of them like the Sharia enough to have it govern the arbitration of any disputes under this contract, why shouldn't the arbitrator use it? He would only be enforcing what the parties wanted.

I don't see any scenario under which the Sharia would ever reach cases such as marital rape. Marital rape being a crime, it would always be litigated in state courts under state criminal law.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Sure...but they still think it's all done for the wrong god.

So it goes.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

That would depend on the circumstances under which the application of Sharia were allowed. In Canada, it is allowed in certain communities in place of civil law, so that when a member of such a commuity appeals to a panel which interprets Sharia, the Crown steps aside, so long as no one has alleged a felony. Accusations of marital rape are exactly the basis upon which some Canadians have called for the practice to be abandoned. As far as i know (and that ain't very far), this only applies in Ontario.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

I find myself wondering if Thomas knows how recently, and shakily, rape in marriage became even thought of as a possible crime in western democracies.

There have been problems with respect for traditional Aboriginal law stopping rape convictions...most recently that I am aware of the rape of a minor..because the girl was, albeit without her consent, married to the man who raped her.

I think the issue of demands for sharia law, for example, in western democracies is an up and coming problem, as politicking around law by fundamentalist christians already is.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

There have been problems with respect for traditional Aboriginal law stopping rape convictions...most recently that I am aware of the rape of a minor..because the girl was, albeit without her consent, married to the man who raped her.

But "respect for the Shariah" isn't what American courts deal in. If something like your case happened to a Muslima in America (and I know it's a problem in the subculture of Germany's Turkish immigrants), and if the police gets wind of it, the courts will deal with it as a criminal matter, and won't show any "respect" for the sharia at all. This Oklahoma ballot measure is a pseudo-solution to a non-problem.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

That would depend on the circumstances under which the application of Sharia were allowed. In Canada, it is allowed in certain communities in place of civil law

Okay, that I would have a problem with. This Oklahoma referendum, on the other hand, looks like another case where conservatives have no solutions to any real problems in America, so they make up fake ones to offer solutions for. ("Standing up to widespread voter fraud" is another example of those in this election season.)

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Very likely...sorry, I wasn't actually discussing this particular dust-up from conservatives re sharia law, but more commenting on what I see as likely to become a genuine problem over time in the west.

That may well not have been clear.

Now I need to go and look up "this Oklahoma ballot"...i'd not heard of it.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

But "respect for the Shariah" isn't what American courts deal in.

This is not true in the case of Covenant Marriages which conservative Christians are pushing in several US States. This is a law passed specifically for Conservative Christians that changes how the state treats their marriage. The argument against this is that a covenant marriage makes it much more difficult for battered women, or abused children, to get protection and relief.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

("Standing up to widespread voter fraud" is another example of those in this election season.)

Those clowns have been flogging that one for fifty years and more. You'd think by now they'd have realized that they're getting no mileage out of it. I can't really blame the politicians, though--if that kind of lunacy gets the voters worked up, it's perfectly reasonable for them to continue to peddle it.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:

But "respect for the Shariah" isn't what American courts deal in.

This is not true in the case of Covenant Marriages which conservative Christians are pushing in several US States. This is a law passed specifically for Conservative Christians that changes how the state treats their marriage. The argument against this is that a covenant marriage makes it much more difficult for battered women, or abused children, to get protection and relief.

That's different. Covenant marriages are institutions of state law, even if the state enacted them at the request of conservative Christian voters. But when the Sharia serves as a substitute for civil law, as Setanta says it can in Ontario, that's an extra-legal institution that nobody ever voted on. By contrast, if Oklahoma Muslims got the legislature to enact a criminal law that has the hands of thieves chopped off for punishment, the current referendum wouldn't keep them from it. (Though other parts of the state and federal constitutions would.) And if the courts were to enforce it, they would do it as a matter of state law, not respect for the Sharia.

0 Replies

Why Conservatives want Sharia Law even while they condemn it.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know