Sharia, Maria and Levi; A Tale of Three Religions
A popular new law [approved by 70% of Oklahoma voters] that bars Oklahoma courts from considering Islamic law, or Shariah, when deciding cases was put on hold Monday after a prominent Muslim in the state won a temporary restraining order in federal court…U.S. District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LeGrange ruled that the measure, which passed by a large margin in last Tuesday’s elections, would be suspended until a hearing on Nov. 22. -Reported Fox News.
So children, in an unprecedented move the Oklahoma voters banned Sharia law and international law from consideration. Yet, neighbor, the Muslim activists in the state have sued and gotten a hold placed on the law.
I mean, I’m all for religious freedom, but the problems with Sharia law is that it advocates against the other laws in a given country. You can find other specific concerns here. Among other concerns are the one stated as #9 on our source page:
Testimony from women is given only half the weight of men [in most sources outside of Wikipedia Sharia states that a woman's testimony only carries the weight of 1/4th of a man's], and testimony from non-Muslims may be excluded altogether (if against a Muslim).
Representative Rex Duncan has said the amendment was not intended as an attack on Muslims or Islamic law in particular but an effort to prevent activist judges from relying on international law or Islamic law when ruling on legal cases. The law simply states that in making rulings the judges judge as American judges within the American legal system, if that’s a travesty, or draconian pig-headedness, I don’t understand.
A U.S. Muslim advocacy group is suing Oklahoma state for barring judges from considering Sharia rulings in Muslim cases, stressing that the ban runs against the constitutional right of religious freedom to all Americans, reported the Wall Street Journal on Friday, November 5. Here’s an interesting article that highlights some practical concerns.
As I mentioned before, the Muslim activist group is suing Oklahoma, which I find awesome. Sue your way to religious freedom, one fatwa at a time little clerics, one fatwa at a time.
Therefore, I too would like to throw my hat in the ring and sue Oklahoma over measures banning Levitical law from the courts. I would like to sue for the right to be held to all 613 commandments of Levitical law, and this is how it will work:
I mean, if I need to stone an adulteress I should have the religious freedom to do it, right? If I want to decry my neighbor for yoking oxen on the sabbath, shouldn’t i have a right to express my religious freedom? Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. I mean, I’ve always wanted that under the table live-in gardener. Isn’t it my right to offer sacrifices of bulls on the brazen altars of the Lord and send up a pleasing smell to His presence.
I have a religious right to shut down every cheeseburger and pizza joint I can find and be protected under the Levitical Law and religious freedom clause. Obviously.
I have a neighbor who works on Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that she should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill her myself, or should I ask the police to do it? Perhaps, the Spanish Inquisition? Aren’t these part of my expression of religious freedom?
My inner Jew feels we should strip NFL players of their dignity and ostracize them into hovels outside our cities for playing with pig-skin; they are obviously unclean. IHOP is right out, and the numbers of our counting should be in Hebrew. Right? I mean, I can sue for that…right?
Levitical law should just like Sharia law be applied to those who appeal to it. And that’s why I’m becoming an activist for Levitical law in America. It makes my blood sing to think that just like Muslims across the globe I too can stone an adulteress. Religious freedom means that Americans too can amputate the hand off a thief. It sends a clear message and sends them on their way. What a way to reduce prison time and be more cost effective!
Levitical law should be an express part of my religious freedom, and since it’s good for penal systems everywhere, it should just then be universally imposed, should it not?
Update: Post publication a breaking story has been reported by The Telegraph and I had to post it. A woman is being put to death for blasphemy against Muhammad. This is where it gets good! Some people say she never even committed the blasphemy but because she’s A Christian the charges stand. That’s what I’m talking about! Capital Punishment needlessly is the way to keep those women in check!
Ok. As a Catholic, I only have a few specific points on this matter.
1) We are in a world at war culturally.
We can and should look to the peacemakers for assistance, for they are the sons of God. None stands out more than St. Francis of Assisi who in my opinion is one of the greatest saints recognized in the Christian canon of saints. In a time of war, bitter open bloodshed, he spoke with the sultan, and sought to make peace through conversion.
His tolerance was a patient, thoughtful openness to understanding the one deemed an enemy by the Christian empire, but he still did not consign himself to agreement with Islam. Anyways, the point is, we can make peace, but only if we stick to being Catholics, only if we retain our Christian identity will it make sense. We must be committed to our God, and to our faith, but that does not rule out conversation, evangelization and a quest for lasting peace. Radical Islam seems to want none of that, and therefore we must pray.
You can read another article on the subject of Catholics and Sharia here. My biggest observation in this whole situation is that even if we are not citing the extreme cases where hands are removed or women are forced back into abusive marriages, we are still dealing with a system that dehumanizes, and how!
When a woman’s testimony is weighed less than a man’s as a legal system, it’s pretty stinkin’ awesome. (Besides, who wants to listen to women anyways?) It puts women back where they belong, in the kitchen, cooking up terrifyingly delicious dinners. It champions the heterosexual adult male at the cost of all other aspects of society (obviously, as God intended).
Ave Maria Gratia Plena! There’s no natural law at work here, and thus it is a system that does not coequally stand alongside the Judeao-Christian traditions, despite the claims of some people. That’s ok though, because when it’s all about toleration, everyone wants to be tolerant.
Seriously, who wants to be seen as a bigot? Surely, not I. Everyone except the infamous Father Z anyways, (likely a jesuit spy, working against the hard fought battle of global toleration for Islam) has “two cents” to chime in as well. Another of those pesky Catholics has a response to the good Archbishop of Canterbury seen here. These Practical Catholics seem to want to undermine the Islamic position with some intent. They’re harping on issues of religious freedom, and human dignity and the nature of Western Civilization.
Catholics find themselves wishing to uphold religious freedom and human dignity, and therefore should do nothing. Seriously, say nothing, do nothing, think nothing of it. The Catholic role is apolitical, marginal, and weak. What can a single person do? St. Francis of Assisi sought peace with the Islamic invaders through conversion, patient, loving conversion preaching, but nonetheless, he saw Islam as incompatible with the Christian way. It is not bigotry to disagree, it is bigotry to disagree without listening and to disagree for the sake of disagreement. That single man, has spawned entire religious orders, and inspires even Protestants who hate Catholics left and right to contemplate the love that a single soul can have for all of creation.
Catholics in the modern world have a role to play, and that role is crucial in the reshaping of societies in which they find themselves. The nature of God in our two societies is different, and therefore Muslims must understand that while they may have a lot to bring to the table, sharia courts should have no bearing on the way a secular Western nation does legal proceedings. Is this law passed in Oklahoma capitalizing on Islamophobia, maybe. Maybe is probably an understatement, but not without reason. There have been leanings towards international readings of law by some judges. The New Jersey story unsettles me, and I hope it unsettles you too.
Catholics can be a light in the world, and a city on a hill, but only if we actively engage in transforming the world with little steps.
I for one, will champion the way of St. Francis in all sincerity, and see our two empires as incompatible but able to communicate. I will practically argue that Sharia has no place in American law, and I will argue that when it comes to legal proceedings, there is nothing that can be done but to disagree.
Just one final thought:
If I were to find myself in the court of law for breaking a law, how would I be tried? As an American, a Jew? A Catholic? Obviously, there is no clear answer folks. Moral ambiguity is the only answer we really have. I suppose. But that’s ok. Because I am Religious Freedom, and you can too!
Thanks for reading.
Here’s a lift of my hot cocoa to you the reader, and to me not being a regularly political blogger. This post has been exhausting and fun, but exhausting. I think I’d like to retire my pundit wings now.