Many red states have attempted to ban Sharia Law. The main reason for this is that they do not want the laws of the Muslim religion to play any part in the United States legal system. It is foreign. They feel that Muslims are trying to sneak Sharia into the American legal system in ways that do not reflect U.S. legal principles or beliefs.
Pretty much Sharia is a guide for Muslims to lead a life that is acceptable to Allah, just as every other religion has its own laws that guide the lives of the faithful.
But just as other religions, for the most part, do not try to force their laws on the rest of society that may not believe all the same things, after all, all Christian religions do not have all the same rules or we would have only one Christian faith and not the number of denominations that we do, no one is really attempting to force Sharia law on our legal system.
Besides, what religion in the United States would even consider making their religious laws the law of the land. If this were the case, a few years ago no one would be allowed to eat meat on Fridays without committing a crime if a certain denomination had won a religious supremacy war.
Well, maybe one.
Yeah, there will be those who claim people had come here for religious freedom, but they overlook that Jamestown was a business venture; Plymouth was not a burgeoning country, but rather an isolated community of people who wanted to separate from others; and Boston was founded by Puritans who were in charge of England at the time and certainly were not escaping themselves. New York was a giant entertainment district won from the Dutch. And I am not sure that religions like the Quakers would agree that the colonies were a place for religious tolerance and freedom in light of their persecution and why Roger Williams had to move on to Rhode Island.
Even the Founding Fathers were not all that religious. Some were, but some were not. The Creator cited in the Declaration of Independence was an undefined and very generic “Creator”, which could be whatever a religion assumed it to be. The Christian God was not part of that document, nor was God in any guise even mentioned in the Constitution.
The Constitution, by the way, is the law of the land and it applies to all citizens born as such or naturalized.
So it is beyond annoying that while the Republicans are doing everything to prevent a fictitious introduction of Sharia Law into our jurisprudence, they are intent on forcing their Christian laws on all of us. Perhaps we will soon have laws that would ban all pork products from consumption, tattoos and piercings, and banning people from shaving or cutting their hair. It's in Leviticus after all. But this probably won't happen because they love a good pork barbeque, and would go nuts in the red states if you had to ban football because the ball is a pigskin.
Led by Idaho Representative Republican Raul Labrador some House Republicans have proposed a bill that would provide a nationwide “license to discriminate” in the name of “religious liberty”. The law of this country, and even more so in Massachusetts since we have had marriage equality going on ten years now, entitles same-sex married couples equal benefits to those of opposite sex couples, but this bill would deny those benefits.
HR 3133 would remove any consequences for any organization or individual that chooses not to recognize a same-sex marriage:
"The Federal Government shall not take an adverse action against a person, on the basis that such person acts in accordance with a religious belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage".
This would create special religious protections only for people who oppose same-sex marriage or premarital sex.
The religious folks like to claim that equal rights for Gay people are actually special rights, and, therefore equality for these American citizens should be rejected, yet they want the right to simply ignore laws.
This strikes me as a rather special right. Their religion trumps the Constitution?
Not all religions are anti-Gay equality, so this bill, if passed, would favor those religions that do oppose equality, and would, therefore, establish that certain religions have a preference over others. Certain religions will be allowed to violate the establishment Clause and the First Amendment.
Now some people who have negative attitudes toward Gay people might like this, especially if it backs their religious beliefs, but the “premarital sex” part applies to straight people as well.
The old and obviously phony objection of a student to having to take a test because it is against their religion grows up so it can be applied to the work place.
Someone who applies for a tax return, visa application, or Social Security can be denied these because it goes against a federal worker’s religious beliefs. The applicants could be Gay, or straight people shacking up.
These same people could be turned away from homeless shelters or denied post disaster aid
Hospitals that are nominally run by churches and which receive federal funds could deny visitation rights as well, and do so without fear of repercussions.
If religious laws can trump the Constitution, if religious laws can be the excuse for individuals to choose which laws they will follow and which they can ignore, and if this bill favors certain religions over others, it is the allowing of Sharia Law by another name.
If a religion wants me to become a member, convince me of the value of your beliefs, don’t have your adherents force your beliefs on me through secular legislation.
And, don't look for ways to use your religion to break the laws you don't like.
That is a special right, and you claim you do not like those.