Zomblog article excerpt- I shouldn’t have to write this essay. But a judge in Oklahoma forced me into it.
Last month, 70% of the voters in Oklahoma approved State Question 755, which bans Sharia law (and international law) from being used in the state’s legal system. Almost immediately afterward, CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) sued to have the vote overturned, based on the bizarre claim that the measure is “unconstitutional.” U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange then sided with CAIR and issued an injunction preventing the measure from taking effect until all lawsuits against it are resolved. Since the suits will likely take years to play out, the new measure (and the will of the voters) will be stymied for the foreseeable future.
Those who oppose Sharia in the United States often argue their point by highlighting how misogynistic, backward, cruel and discriminatory Islamic law can be under most interpretations. And while all that may be true, it is the wrong argument to make. I get so frustrated watching pundits, politicians and bloggers making the weakest argument in what should be a slam-dunk debate that I’ve decided to write this brief outline of what I think should be the prioritized hierarchy of arguments against the use of Sharia in the United States.
In order, these are the arguments that Sharia’s opponents should be using, not just in Oklahoma but anywhere else in the country where the same issue crops up:
1. U.S. law is the “supreme law of the land,” no exceptions.
2. Sharia, as “divine revelation,” is inherently undemocratic.
3. Many aspects of Sharia are flagrantly unconstitutional.
4. Sharia is fundamentally religious law, and should be inapplicable to U.S. criminal or civil law.
5. Subjectively, Sharia is a discriminatory and cruel legal system.
The entire article is available at Zomblog.
In addition, most of what needs to be understood today in regards to Islamic extremism is linked in the following two Kish Collections articles (includes links to key video)-
U.S. Media Sleeps While Historic Trial Unfolds
Necessary definitions for Christian understanding of Islamic extremism
Those who oppose Sharia in the United States often argue their point by highlighting how misogynistic, backward, cruel and discriminatory Islamic law can be under most interpretations. And while all that may be true, it is the wrong argument to make. I get so frustrated watching pundits, politicians and bloggers making the weakest argument in what should be a slam-dunk debate that I’ve decided to write this brief outline of what I think should be the prioritized hierarchy of arguments against the use of Sharia in the United States.
In order, these are the arguments that Sharia’s opponents should be using, not just in Oklahoma but anywhere else in the country where the same issue crops up:
1. U.S. law is the “supreme law of the land,” no exceptions.
2. Sharia, as “divine revelation,” is inherently undemocratic.
3. Many aspects of Sharia are flagrantly unconstitutional.
4. Sharia is fundamentally religious law, and should be inapplicable to U.S. criminal or civil law.
5. Subjectively, Sharia is a discriminatory and cruel legal system.
The entire article is available at Zomblog.
In addition, most of what needs to be understood today in regards to Islamic extremism is linked in the following two Kish Collections articles (includes links to key video)-
U.S. Media Sleeps While Historic Trial Unfolds
Necessary definitions for Christian understanding of Islamic extremism
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment