Original post:
www.salon.com
Tennessee state senator Bill Ketron introduced a bill to make practicing Shariah law a felony equal to treason
Jeremy Spiers Sometimes I think Tennessee is awesome... and sometimes I am reminded that we, too, have our share of total idiots...
Clifton Holloway So where do you apply the awesome comment and where do you apply the idiot comment...Where do you stand?
Frank W Callo You don't make religious practice a felony, period. Anyone who claims to be against big government intervention should be against this. You can't be against big government when it is convenient for you, i.e., when it is YOUR private affairs that they seek to regulate and for it when it is the private affairs of someone you disagree with.
Jeremy Spiers
Jeremy Spiers Sometimes I think Tennessee is awesome... and sometimes I am reminded that we, too, have our share of total idiots...
Clifton Holloway So where do you apply the awesome comment and where do you apply the idiot comment...Where do you stand?
Frank W Callo You don't make religious practice a felony, period. Anyone who claims to be against big government intervention should be against this. You can't be against big government when it is convenient for you, i.e., when it is YOUR private affairs that they seek to regulate and for it when it is the private affairs of someone you disagree with.
Jeremy Spiers
Sorry for the late post... just got back to a working computer!
Good question, Clifton... I'll try to lay out exactly how I feel about the current fear over the insidious attack of "Sharia Law" =:-) --- nothing said, by the way, is directed ...at you or anyone else in particular, especially since I don't know your position... so I'm not making any assumptions from your question - just answering the question
OK... the very idea that a nation such as ours could POSSIBLY make religious practices illegal without becoming essentially fascist is asinine. The attempts to prevent Muslims from practicing "Sharia Law" are at best misguided in their ignorance of what Sharia is; or at worst, racist, bigoted, and/or anti-religious folly.
- Disclaimer: Before I get accused of being a shill for terrorists or a fool who doesn't understand "real" Islam, I should explain that I have studied Islam (as a comparative religions scholar) for a couple of years and have friends that are Liberal, democratic, peace-loving, and Muslim, (some of whom are as American as you or me) - I should also explain that I know Muslims that are racist, pathetic, whiny, and/or bigoted... in other words, they are just about the same as every other group of individuals that I know =:-) -
At any rate, Sharia is part and parcel of Islam. The harm that has resulted in some areas and instances from Sharia is caused by particular understandings of or interpretations of Sharia. Outlawing Sharia to prevent undesirable practices simply won't work, as it will never stand up in court.
SO... if a politician doesn't want to see women beaten or thinks that people shouldn't be forced by their family to dress in certain ways, then they should make laws to prevent THAT, and work with members of the Muslim intelligentsia and rank-and-file who are working against the same things.
To outlaw Sharia as such means almost nothing. In a country such as ours, you can't stop someone from purchasing certain foods, washing their bodies in certain ways, or going to a religious figure for counseling on family matters. That would be like a law outlawing Jewish dietary practice or forbidding Apostolic Pentecostals from teaching their children to wear gender appropriate and modest clothing... It simply can't be done without giving up more personal freedom than Americans are willing to part with. --- the time at which this ceases to be true is the time in which I will do everything I can to leave this country and go somewhere that still values religious freedom.
The current fear-mongering that equates Sharia with some insidious force which will sneak up on us and capture us is exactly that... fear-mongering. It is the equivalent of the claim that Native Americans were savages which needed to be forced into Christian schools away from their parents in order to be "civilized," or the fears bandied about during the civil rights movement that black males were all looking for chances to rape white women. At the heart of it is fear - fear of losing political power, fear that one's own God isn't big enough to compete with someone else's, fear of the unknown, or even fear that one won't be re-elected. People that are frightened by it should probably do two or three things... go meet some Muslims in their community and ask them about these fears as well as these Muslims' own fears; get some books by objective scholars that teach about the Muslim world; and read some actual texts by Muslims - both the more liberal members of the community as well as others - then make up their own mind.
At the heart of these types of fears is lack of knowledge, community, and relationships. Anyone who conquers these sources of fear will find that - just like every other group of people they are familiar with- they like some things about Islam and dislike others; they like some Muslims, and dislike others; and they agree with some Muslims about important issues, and disagree with others.
I reject attempts to limit the religious freedom of others, I reject attempts - based on ignorance - to demonize people I know and have close relationships with, and I wholeheartedly reject the fear from which these attempts arise.
... I guess this statement will sit well with some and less well with others... especially those who think Rush is Right. However, this is the great thing about our country, and I hope we keep being known for this liberty, rather than one day being know for fear, ignorance, and fascism.
-------------------------------------
From Wikipedia, but based on good references, here is a pretty decent analysis of fascism...
"Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. They claim that culture is created by the collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus they reject individualism. Viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they see pluralism as a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety."
Clifton Holloway
Good question, Clifton... I'll try to lay out exactly how I feel about the current fear over the insidious attack of "Sharia Law" =:-) --- nothing said, by the way, is directed ...at you or anyone else in particular, especially since I don't know your position... so I'm not making any assumptions from your question - just answering the question
OK... the very idea that a nation such as ours could POSSIBLY make religious practices illegal without becoming essentially fascist is asinine. The attempts to prevent Muslims from practicing "Sharia Law" are at best misguided in their ignorance of what Sharia is; or at worst, racist, bigoted, and/or anti-religious folly.
- Disclaimer: Before I get accused of being a shill for terrorists or a fool who doesn't understand "real" Islam, I should explain that I have studied Islam (as a comparative religions scholar) for a couple of years and have friends that are Liberal, democratic, peace-loving, and Muslim, (some of whom are as American as you or me) - I should also explain that I know Muslims that are racist, pathetic, whiny, and/or bigoted... in other words, they are just about the same as every other group of individuals that I know =:-) -
At any rate, Sharia is part and parcel of Islam. The harm that has resulted in some areas and instances from Sharia is caused by particular understandings of or interpretations of Sharia. Outlawing Sharia to prevent undesirable practices simply won't work, as it will never stand up in court.
SO... if a politician doesn't want to see women beaten or thinks that people shouldn't be forced by their family to dress in certain ways, then they should make laws to prevent THAT, and work with members of the Muslim intelligentsia and rank-and-file who are working against the same things.
To outlaw Sharia as such means almost nothing. In a country such as ours, you can't stop someone from purchasing certain foods, washing their bodies in certain ways, or going to a religious figure for counseling on family matters. That would be like a law outlawing Jewish dietary practice or forbidding Apostolic Pentecostals from teaching their children to wear gender appropriate and modest clothing... It simply can't be done without giving up more personal freedom than Americans are willing to part with. --- the time at which this ceases to be true is the time in which I will do everything I can to leave this country and go somewhere that still values religious freedom.
The current fear-mongering that equates Sharia with some insidious force which will sneak up on us and capture us is exactly that... fear-mongering. It is the equivalent of the claim that Native Americans were savages which needed to be forced into Christian schools away from their parents in order to be "civilized," or the fears bandied about during the civil rights movement that black males were all looking for chances to rape white women. At the heart of it is fear - fear of losing political power, fear that one's own God isn't big enough to compete with someone else's, fear of the unknown, or even fear that one won't be re-elected. People that are frightened by it should probably do two or three things... go meet some Muslims in their community and ask them about these fears as well as these Muslims' own fears; get some books by objective scholars that teach about the Muslim world; and read some actual texts by Muslims - both the more liberal members of the community as well as others - then make up their own mind.
At the heart of these types of fears is lack of knowledge, community, and relationships. Anyone who conquers these sources of fear will find that - just like every other group of people they are familiar with- they like some things about Islam and dislike others; they like some Muslims, and dislike others; and they agree with some Muslims about important issues, and disagree with others.
I reject attempts to limit the religious freedom of others, I reject attempts - based on ignorance - to demonize people I know and have close relationships with, and I wholeheartedly reject the fear from which these attempts arise.
... I guess this statement will sit well with some and less well with others... especially those who think Rush is Right. However, this is the great thing about our country, and I hope we keep being known for this liberty, rather than one day being know for fear, ignorance, and fascism.
--------------------------
From Wikipedia, but based on good references, here is a pretty decent analysis of fascism...
"Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong. They claim that culture is created by the collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus they reject individualism. Viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they see pluralism as a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety."
I wonder how many Christians have committed acts, such as flying a jet airplane into a building full of innocent Muslims? The point I am trying make is, yes, people are afraid, but they're not afraid of change, well maybe some, but i think... most are afraid of another attack similar, or worse than the previous one. Every one has their guard up, as they did after the bombing of Pear Harbor. It is very unfortunate that a small group of people have created this identity for the whole. But when it is said, that it was done in the name of their god, then anyone that worships in the name of their god is a suspect. After the David Koresh incident, people started calling Christians, fanatics, cults and so on. Once again there was a small group people creating a bad identity of the whole. Unfortunately this idea says that any devout, conservative christian might have an arsenal of weaponry, and militia, ready for big government to come and take away their basic rights as humans. Obviously this is a false picture that was painted about all conservative Christians. I just believe that for the most part, people do not believe that Islam is at peace toward Americans and/or Christians, and that most people are afraid of being attacked again. If a 9/11 were to happen to to a group of, predominantly Muslim believers, in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, then the fear would be in reverse, and all Christians would be a suspect of another similar attack. I do not listen to Rush. He's a trouble maker that stirs up mischief, and very arrogant.
Jeremy Spiers
Jeremy Spiers
Well, I agree with much of that, but my point is about equating "Shariah Law" with "Terrorist"... it simply isn't so, and you can't make the religious practices of 1/3 of the world's population equivilent to treason, which is what this idio...t was calling for. And, of course, I assume you are very narrowly defining Christianity in this case, since self identified Christians around the world have routinely committed terrorist and/or violent acts =:-) Religion is part and parcel of culture, and often used as an excuse for violence. Just as we would argue that "real Christians" wouldn't bomb women and children in Ireland, pour acid on their children's faces to drive out demons, or force their underage daughters into arranged marriages, many MANY Muslims (and importantly Muslim leaders) have repeatedly said that those who bombed the WTC, those who beat women for not wearing a burqua, and those who shoot up buses in Palestine are not "real Muslims."
My main point is that by identifying Shariah as the problem and trying to outlaw it, the legislator in question exhibits an almost unbelievable level of ignorance. Shariah includes such things as rules for fasting, dietary practices, washing rituals, relationship rules, guidlines to prayer, guidance on the use of drugs and alcohol, etc. These things are religious practices and ideas, and as such cannot be equated to treason without eliminating our freedom of religious practice.
What COULD be passed legally, though I believe it to be unnecessary would be a law that forbid the INSTITUTIONALIZATION of Shariah law for non-Muslims in a state or country, though if any country ever had a majority of conservative Muslims large enough to actually vote in Shariah law, then such a regulation would be a moot point.
I agree that people are afraid of being attacked, but fear of attack has led to horrendous attrocities and loss of freedoms in the past (consider the massacre of native American women and children, the internment and subsequent deaths of Japanese Americans during WWII, and the lynching of Blacks after the civil war) and simply put, we should at some point learn from our mistakes, and quit having these rediculous knee-jerk reactions to our fears!
Also, people need to get over their panic. Reactionary rhetoric spreads fear and hate, and doesn't make us ONE BIT safer. What has made us safer is our nation's attempts to work with Muslim nations to prevent the growth of violent sects inside their borders, the whistle blowing by Muslims which has led to the capture of terrorists, and the renewed interest among Americans to get to know their neighbors and fellow travelers in order to make intelligent decisions regarding their own safety and security.
The point I am making about Shariah is perhaps best illustrated by an example. When the Oklahoma City bombing happened, it is true that many began to fear almost all fundamentalist and conservative Christians. What did NOT happen, however, is any member of government daring to suggest that we should make such things as fasting, foot-washing, pastoral marriage counseling, and modest clothing treasonous. The comparison is not exact, but it is very close, and does explain why it is absolutely impossible to enforce such a law in a country such as ours.
In the end, the fact remains that such a law, even if passed, would result in almost immediate dismissal by even the most conservative of courts as it is entirely unconstitutional. Then, Tennessee would look ridiculous... which brings us back to where we started. Tennessee is awesome, but it does, indeed, have its share of idiots!
Clifton Holloway
My main point is that by identifying Shariah as the problem and trying to outlaw it, the legislator in question exhibits an almost unbelievable level of ignorance. Shariah includes such things as rules for fasting, dietary practices, washing rituals, relationship rules, guidlines to prayer, guidance on the use of drugs and alcohol, etc. These things are religious practices and ideas, and as such cannot be equated to treason without eliminating our freedom of religious practice.
What COULD be passed legally, though I believe it to be unnecessary would be a law that forbid the INSTITUTIONALIZATION of Shariah law for non-Muslims in a state or country, though if any country ever had a majority of conservative Muslims large enough to actually vote in Shariah law, then such a regulation would be a moot point.
I agree that people are afraid of being attacked, but fear of attack has led to horrendous attrocities and loss of freedoms in the past (consider the massacre of native American women and children, the internment and subsequent deaths of Japanese Americans during WWII, and the lynching of Blacks after the civil war) and simply put, we should at some point learn from our mistakes, and quit having these rediculous knee-jerk reactions to our fears!
Also, people need to get over their panic. Reactionary rhetoric spreads fear and hate, and doesn't make us ONE BIT safer. What has made us safer is our nation's attempts to work with Muslim nations to prevent the growth of violent sects inside their borders, the whistle blowing by Muslims which has led to the capture of terrorists, and the renewed interest among Americans to get to know their neighbors and fellow travelers in order to make intelligent decisions regarding their own safety and security.
The point I am making about Shariah is perhaps best illustrated by an example. When the Oklahoma City bombing happened, it is true that many began to fear almost all fundamentalist and conservative Christians. What did NOT happen, however, is any member of government daring to suggest that we should make such things as fasting, foot-washing, pastoral marriage counseling, and modest clothing treasonous. The comparison is not exact, but it is very close, and does explain why it is absolutely impossible to enforce such a law in a country such as ours.
In the end, the fact remains that such a law, even if passed, would result in almost immediate dismissal by even the most conservative of courts as it is entirely unconstitutional. Then, Tennessee would look ridiculous... which brings us back to where we started. Tennessee is awesome, but it does, indeed, have its share of idiots!
Clifton Holloway
I didn't say that this fear was right. I only wanted to point out that most people are not afraid of change, as you stated. Most are afraid of being attacked again. If the majority of American people were afraid of change, then we would hav...e never voted in a President of the African descent. "Change "is the platform that Obama stood on so firmly. I never said that I agreed or disagreed regarding this bill. I just don't want people to think that the motives of the ones pushing for it, were not driven with bigotry, hate, fascism, and fear of change. It is a defense. After someone breaks into a house, people usually take countermeasures to prevent it from happening again. Laws are written, so that there is a penalty for someone breaking into your home. This group of Muslims flew those planes and committed terror in the name of their God, for religious purposes. So, now you are seeing people do things such as this, to prevent this from happening again. The other thing is, that we as Americans, haven't gotten any closure for the acts that was committed on 9/11. The politicians all know this. The people responsible haven't been caught, and there isn't any justice for the innocent women, men, and children that perished that day. Politicians feel that it is there job to make the American people feel safe again, so they present bills similar to this one to get that result. The sad part is that this bill will not bring back the many innocent people that were killed on 9/11. I want justice. I want the people that did this, brought in. I think that if the people that did this were brought to justice, then most of these pathetic countermeasures would stop. Its just another way for the government to try and give us closure and/or justice when what we want is the ones responsible for it. It will have been ten years and still no justice. This will be my last post regarding this matter.
Jeremy Spiers
Jeremy Spiers
Just so we're clear, none of this is aimed at you, so please don't take it personal. I actually agree with most of what you've said, with a few qualifications. I agree that closure would have helped quite a lot, and I would say that topplin...g Saddam was no substitute for catching Osama and bringing him to justice.
I do disagree about fear of change. I never said that a majority of Americans fear change (which is why I don't think this bill will pass), but I DO think a good chunk of the population is fearful of change at one level or another. All I have to do is listen to the rhetoric of my extended friend and family group to know that! Also, I believe that there are many bigoted people (I've met a lot, from all groups including conservatives, liberals, Christians, and Muslims), but I think this bigotry is a direct result of the fear and lack of knowledge that afflicts our generation. Unfortunately, this fear and lack of knowledge is not addressed by our leaders, who are busy spreading their own forms of fear to get re-elected, or our media, which is busy finding the most sensational version of events out there as to present as "the truth!"
Your scenario about a house break-in is accurate, but the laws were made directly after 9-11.... increases in laws against terrorist activities, the creation of the Homeland Security Department, etc. The laws being passed now are aimed at individuals who, for the most part, have no relationship whatsoever with, and disagree with, terrorism of any type. THAT, I would contend, is due either to colossal ignorance or extreme bigotry. I don't think people like the legislator Bill Ketron are looking for closure or justice... I think he is a bigoted Jack-ass! Otherwise, he would have followed the lead of surrounding states and attempted to outlaw the use of Shariah law in our courts and law system, not its use in the lives of individuals! His bill would require the attorney generals office to investigate individuals and groups that prayed in certain ways, washed their bodies or certain ways, or practiced certain dietary laws. That is a law against religious practices, is unconstitutional, it is rooted in a fascist mentality, and if passed (which it won't be) would say some very sad things about our state.
To carry your example to a logical conclusion, an appropriate response to a break-in would be better locks, a shotgun, and lobbying for stiffer penalties for thieves... an inappropriate response would be finding out which religion the thief was, then declaring everyone of that religion evil, no matter what they say or practice, then outlawing all practice of their religion. It simply doesn't make sense, and can only be, as I said, a result of fear and/or bigotry.... it certainly isn't a logical reaction!
In the end, I think discussions like this are extremely profitable. Taking positions on political issues always creates high feelings, but open-minded discourse helps all participants expand and elucidate upon how they feel about these issues. In fact, I wouldn't have ever presented my views on this bill so thoroughly if you hadn't asked me about it, and I doubt you would have thought about it as much either! To be clear, I think that you are a thinker, not a close minded bigot, which is why I really wasn't aiming any part of my comments at you.
----------------------------------------------------
If I get any more responses, I will move them here, or feel free to respond here.
I do disagree about fear of change. I never said that a majority of Americans fear change (which is why I don't think this bill will pass), but I DO think a good chunk of the population is fearful of change at one level or another. All I have to do is listen to the rhetoric of my extended friend and family group to know that! Also, I believe that there are many bigoted people (I've met a lot, from all groups including conservatives, liberals, Christians, and Muslims), but I think this bigotry is a direct result of the fear and lack of knowledge that afflicts our generation. Unfortunately, this fear and lack of knowledge is not addressed by our leaders, who are busy spreading their own forms of fear to get re-elected, or our media, which is busy finding the most sensational version of events out there as to present as "the truth!"
Your scenario about a house break-in is accurate, but the laws were made directly after 9-11.... increases in laws against terrorist activities, the creation of the Homeland Security Department, etc. The laws being passed now are aimed at individuals who, for the most part, have no relationship whatsoever with, and disagree with, terrorism of any type. THAT, I would contend, is due either to colossal ignorance or extreme bigotry. I don't think people like the legislator Bill Ketron are looking for closure or justice... I think he is a bigoted Jack-ass! Otherwise, he would have followed the lead of surrounding states and attempted to outlaw the use of Shariah law in our courts and law system, not its use in the lives of individuals! His bill would require the attorney generals office to investigate individuals and groups that prayed in certain ways, washed their bodies or certain ways, or practiced certain dietary laws. That is a law against religious practices, is unconstitutional, it is rooted in a fascist mentality, and if passed (which it won't be) would say some very sad things about our state.
To carry your example to a logical conclusion, an appropriate response to a break-in would be better locks, a shotgun, and lobbying for stiffer penalties for thieves... an inappropriate response would be finding out which religion the thief was, then declaring everyone of that religion evil, no matter what they say or practice, then outlawing all practice of their religion. It simply doesn't make sense, and can only be, as I said, a result of fear and/or bigotry.... it certainly isn't a logical reaction!
In the end, I think discussions like this are extremely profitable. Taking positions on political issues always creates high feelings, but open-minded discourse helps all participants expand and elucidate upon how they feel about these issues. In fact, I wouldn't have ever presented my views on this bill so thoroughly if you hadn't asked me about it, and I doubt you would have thought about it as much either! To be clear, I think that you are a thinker, not a close minded bigot, which is why I really wasn't aiming any part of my comments at you.
----------------------------------------------------
If I get any more responses, I will move them here, or feel free to respond here.
