As you probably know, Representative Peter King (R-NY) held hearings in Washington DC regarding Muslims in America. I think they’re more political theatre than anything substantial and remind me of previous incidents like the Salem Witch Trials and McCarthyism. However, they raise some interesting questions (I’m not getting into King’s IRA stuff here). As with many issues, I’m caught in the middle.
On one hand, it’s unfair to demonize an entire demographic due to the actions and views of a very small, fringe minority. Just because there are Muslims in the world screaming, “Death to America!” or seeking to impose Shariah Law on America doesn’t automatically mean that I should suspect that all Muslims feel similarly. I’ll give benefit of the doubt. The reality is the vast majority of American Muslims condemn such radicalism.
On the other hand, we need to recognize the fact that there are people out there who hate America and want to hurt us. They must be stopped. Some (but not all) of them are Muslims. There is also a vocal, very small minority of the Muslim population that seeks to impose Shariah Law on America, and they too must be stopped. Terrorism and the broad imposition of Shariah Law are an intolerable assault on our rights. They’re also two topics I’d like to explore here.
Before this discussion can continue, we also need to recognize that the USA has no official religion. The USA is not a Christian nation. Nowhere in the Constitution is the USA defined as such. Furthermore, Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli from the late 1700’s explicitly says the USA is not a Christian nation. It reads:
“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
There is controversy about whether or not Article 11 appears in the Arabic translations, but the version of the treaty Congress voted on (and President John Adams signed) clearly contains Article 11. The latter point is a mortal wound to the argument that America is a Christian nation.
We need to remember this to frame our discussion because turning the conflict between the USA and terrorism into a religious one does not help us. It actually hurts us because it motivates those who would do us harm. Allowing them to portray our actions as an attack on their religion is a tremendous recruitment and motivational tool for them. We need to frame the conversation as the USA versus terrorists, not as the USA versus Islam.
Unfortunately, we can’t as effectively keep religion out of the discussion with regards to the Shariah Law movement. The plot thickens when we remember our 1st Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” So, is a law establishing Shariah Law constitutional? Certainly not per the Establishment Clause above. And is a law banning Shariah Law constitutional? Certainly not because of the Free Exercise Clause above, however I could (and do) argue that several aspects of Shariah Law are unconstitutional.
If the Constitution prevents the establishment and the outlaw of Shariah Law, then we’re just stuck, right? Not necessarily. There is ground for compromise. I believe Muslims are free to practice Shariah Law in the USA as long as their practices aren’t in violation to our Constitution and laws and they don’t try to impose it on those of us who don’t want it. As I said above, certain practices of Shariah Law are illegal and unconstitutional, so these practices must not be tolerated. The trick here, as with terrorism, is to frame the discussion such it’s not the USA versus Islam, but the USA ensuring everyone’s individual constitutional rights.
I’m generally an advocate of letting people live their lives however they want to as long as they’re not doing any harm to anybody else (sometimes, people make choices that I think clearly are harmful and I’ll try to persuade them otherwise, but in the end, it’s his/her life to live, not my own). It’s a simplistic view, I know, but we can balance everyone’s needs for freedom and security.
No comments:
Post a Comment