While doing some research on the wives of the Supreme Court Justices, I came across this website. Ginni Thomas, wife of Chief Justice Clarence Thomas, was the original founder and CEO of Liberty Central, Inc. The title of a post dated July 21st caught my eye: “The Threat of Foreign Law”. Here’s how the post starts:
Once again great controversy has arisen over the building of a Mosque; this one in Murfreesboro, TN. Once again no one is getting to the heart of the problem. The fear is not over Islam, but of Sharia Law and the solution lies in preventing foreign law not interfering with a religious practice. We have a nation built on fundamental principles of liberty and law, not fear. If we are ruled by fear, we will lose liberty.
You can read the rest here
The post warns of the supposedly serious threat of Sharia Law somehow becoming part of U.S. law. The post is a bit confusing, but I decided to respond to the basic idea with the following:
I believe that this article is based on the simplistic premise that Sharia Law should be defined as a “foreign law.” It is a particular religion’s law, and, while a few foreign countries are ruled by Islamic theocracies, Sharia law should not be considered to be equivalent to, say, British law or Spanish law or South African law.
I also believe that the entire article is based on the completely false idea that Sharia Law could possibly become anything more than simply one particular religion’s law in this country. The building of a Mosque somewhere in the United States cannot be construed as an ‘attack’ on our Constitutional laws, any more than the building of a Roman Catholic church or a Jewish synagogue should be an ‘attack’ on our Constitutional laws.
The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” According to Wikipedia, “The Establishment Clause [of the First Amendment] prohibits the federal, state or municipal establishment of an official religion or other preference for one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion.”
Therefore, the writer’s premise that “The issue of building Mosques anywhere in the United States must be viewed within this Constitutional framework. We cannot allow the government to dictate the practice of religion, even if the majority of the people demand it…” is a moot point. This article, along with many other articles and speeches warning of the so-called threat of Sharia Law, is simply shameful fear-mongering over a completely non-existent ‘issue.’
If the writer would like to do a post on a true ‘religion vs Constitution’ issue, I would suggest that she investigate Christian anti-abortion laws dictating the laws of several of these United States.
This is our Sunday Roast. What’s on your mind today?