As the Republican candidates continue their fight to become the Republican nominee for the highest office of the country, one thing they all agree with is their opposition to Shariah; also known as the religion of Islam. From the current leading nominee Mitt Romney to Michele Bauchman and Herman Cain, all have stated in their campaigns that the Shariah is a threat to America and it must be stopped. The ABC News website has confirmed this in an article dated March 29, 2011 titled GOP Presidential Hopefuls Blast Sharia Law in Pre-Primary Rhetoric. For those of you who do not know want to know more about the Shariah, I recently gave a presentation on it at the University Christian Church of Austin, TX during a workshop titled Sharia Law – Rumors and Reality.
The famous blog Media Matters for America posted a critique titled Wash. Times Fearmongers That Shariah Law is Coming to a City Near You on an editorial published in the Washington Times titled "Shariah In America's Courts." The editorial was about an amendment that was put forth for ratification that would outlaw the use of the Shariah or any other international law in Oklahoma courts. The amendment was approved in November, 2010 but was never implemented until a panel of federal judges deemed it unconstitutional and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld its unconstitutional status. Disappointed with the outcome, the Washington Times editorial stated,
A panel of federal judges has ruled that states cannot protect their courts from jurists who base their decisions on international or Koranic law. America needs better judges… It should be obvious that judges shouldn't look outside the laws and traditions of their jurisdictions when deciding cases, but in the liberal judicial-activist framework, anything goes.
What the editorial overlooked is that the Constitution already protects the American law from being overridden by another law through the Supremacy Clause. Article VI, Clause 2 called the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution states,
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
It does not require a PhD to understand what the above clause means. The Christian Science Monitor very rightfully published an op-ed about this under the heading Those defending US Constitution from sharia must have failed high school civics. The article states,
Those like Newt Gingrich who try to exploit sharia hysteria to foster fear of Muslims in the US not only fail to understand sharia, they also fail to understand the ideals of religious freedom upon which America was built.
To conclude, I would like to offer my two cents to the American people: Wake up and do not curtail the same freedoms you fought to defend and implement for yourselves. There is a huge difference between accommodating for other cultures and religions and overriding the constitution with another law. Muslims want accommodations just like other religions in the past were accommodated. Jews have Kosher certification and we find supermarkets inundated with products with Kosher certification. What is the big deal if Muslims want the same?
No comments:
Post a Comment