Let's all Embrace the Muslims …

By Roger F. Gay

… fellow people of the Book. Let me give you fair warning. It's the government's fault. That's what we have to think of when religious freedom and freedom generally is at stake. If you're going to presume anything, then presume this: It's the government's fault when there's a problem. And they're not trying to fix it, especially when they say they are.

I read a short commentary at Godfather Politics entitled; New York Times: America Should Embrace Sharia Law. I googled and noticed a large number of republications. Popular comment. I didn't feel like logging in to the New York Times site to read the article under scrutiny. That would seem about as foolish as tuning in to MSNBC. The commentary assured me that some wrongful opinion was been published there. That would not be particularly surprising.

The issue is that there are efforts underway in some states that are said to be aimed at outlawing certain aspects of Sharia law. Personally, I can do without Sharia law. I'm not Sharian. But that's not the point.

The NYT article (excerpt in the commentary) opines that the crusade against Shariah undermines American democracy, ignores our country’s successful history of religious tolerance and assimilation, and creates a dangerous divide between America and its fastest-growing religious minority. The commentary, quite logically, retorts: Letting Muslims and people of other cults practice voluntary ecclesiastical law within their communities is one thing. Muslims wants Shariah law to be the law of the land. State governments are getting smart and shoring up their laws to prevent the courts from forcing Sharia law on American citizens.

Fair enough. But the NYT article gives examples and more. Some of these efforts would curtail Muslims from settling disputes over dietary laws and marriage through religious arbitration, while others would go even further in stigmatizing Islamic life: a bill recently passed by the Tennessee General Assembly equates Shariah with a set of rules that promote “the destruction of the national existence of the United States.”

Does that mean they're members of the Tea Party? (Which has been the subject of very similar accusations.) I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Those of us with Libertarian (classic liberal / American political conservative) leanings are quite convinced of the need to curtail government intrusion; which some politicians might clumsily label a “national existence.”

I must admit a bias here stemming from actual knowledge. Family law, one of the things specifically at issue, was illegally federalized, absorbed into the “national existence”, two decades ago. Marriage is no longer a “sacred private institution” as it once was under Constitutional rule. Since the change, and because of it, most of your individual rights and freedoms have quickly disappeared as far as federal courts are concerned. Nancy Pelosi was aware of this change when she asserted that the Constitution (its modern interpretation by judicial misbehavior) gives Congress unlimited power to regulate whatever it wants to regulate in any way that it wants to regulate. This includes the power to force people to do things in their private lives, against their will, that make no sense.

Dietary issues? Consider Michelle Obama's obsession with telling us all what to eat and the left's incessant battle against McDonald’s (icon of capitalism). Why aren't we holding joint political rallies with Muslims? It doesn't matter if we want to eat different food. What matters is that we all want the freedom to choose.

I've been through too many rounds in my life where public discussion of an “issue” leads the masses to feel that those other people don't deserve the same rights that we do. Something must be done to curtail their freedom. Whenever I dig deeper, it turns out to be a con. It happens over and over and over again. We are constantly divided, especially on the very point we most need to be unified: our liberty.

The con is so simple to understand that it can be difficult to remain aware of how effective it is. It's also very easy to pull off. The others, especially those we don't really know or understand, are the bad guys. We all lose in the end, except for those pesky dishonest members of the Political Class. They're laughing all the way to the bank. “There's Joe Sixpack out there,” they chuckle, clambering for freedom and begging us to take it away as fast as we can.”

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.