Accepting Shariah Law Into The United States

By Semperpapa

I came across this interesting article from the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/opinion/dont-fear-islamic-law-in-america.html?_r=3&hp

Now of course I am not as intellectually capable as the author of this piece, an assistant professor of religious studies at Yale, but I have no reservation about refuting the message that this guy is sending.


In my opinion, the problems with the Jewish population the man is describing taking place in Europe in the past couple of centuries was more of an economic one than religious. Religion was used as an excuse to mask the envy that the imperial houses of the old continent felt about the ability of Jews to be aggressive and successful in commerce.
Even so, the application and following of what Stern calls Jewish Law, was not so radically different from the normal laws followed by the Christian population of Europe.
My understanding is that with the exception of observing the Sabbath, which Stern mentions himself in his article, the Jewish population did not expect special treatment from governmental entities, nor it considered or demanded that their laws would supersede those of the countries they lived in.
Regardless of whatever false excuse Adolf Hitler used to convince the German people that the Jews were conducting socio-economic covert warfare against the people of Germany, it was a misconstruction that had no basis on reality, but only propaganda.

What Prof. Stern is telling us is that American rejection of Shariah law is a crusade, a word that goes beyond the mere rejection of the radicalized form of Islamic law, but a word that has extreme inflammatory significance for Muslims, a crusade against Islam and a refutation of the basic democratic principles of American traditions. Stern is practically telling us that the true exhibition of American exceptionalism would be to become tolerant and embrace the directives of Shariah law.




The part of the article that appeared to me as a telling example of naivete is the following:

"...Given time, American Muslims, like all other religious minorities before them, will adjust their legal and theological traditions, if necessary, to accord to American values..."

What is Stern really saying? Is he calling for allowing Shariah law to supersede the laws of the country in the hope that at some point the followers of Islam will change them to conform to American judicial guidelines? Well, that is what I read into these words.

I find it interesting that someone who is supposed to be so intellectually erudite on the subject of religion could actually believe that followers of Islamic Shariah would modify their beliefs through social osmosis by living in the United States.
The basis of Shariah, as lay men like me understand, is the total submission of all people to its guidelines.
All non believers are to be either exterminated or enslaved, unless they convert. And even in the case of co-existence, the infidels still have to live by Islamic law and pay ransom.
For how long would Mr. Stern allow honor killing to go on before he believes that the followers of such practice would voluntarily depart from it? How many women would the good professor be willing to sacrifice in the name of tolerance?

Shariah law represents the antithesis of the values of our Nation. It is not merely a religious issue, but it widely spills into governmental realm.
Islam, and Shariah particularly, is a social, economic and military ideology masqueraded as religion. Its principles are diametrically opposite of the guidelines of the United States Constitution in both social and economic aspects.
Shariah is government. Its proponents and followers only want Shariah to be the law for every citizen. In times where Christianity is openly maligned and being pushed out of the American people lives, in times when crosses are being removed from the side of highways because they supposedly represent a state endorsement of religion and therefore found offensive, what this professor is invoking is a greater acceptance of a religious ideology that is based on social oppression. Sorry, but this lay man finds this lacking of any common sense.
I am sure that Prof. Stern has all good intentions behind his beliefs as expressed in this article. It would certainly be wonderful if Shariah law was just one of those religious models where the peace and prosperity of all people would be most important. It would be wonderful if Shariah law would promote the same tolerance for other religions that Stern is advocating to give it. It would be wonderful if Shariah did not promote a culture of death.But reality is much different. When apologists like Stern state that the radicalized element of Islam is only a small part of the totality of otherwise peaceful Muslims, they are just grasping for a naive solution of a definitely much greater problem.
Considering that the Muslim world population is of about 1.4 billion people, what is that percentage? 1%? 5%? 10%? Math is not an opinion, unless you are a liberal.

Disturbing to me, not a big fan of academia, is the fact that ideologies like the one proposed by Stern is being taught to the new generations. Here is an assistant professor who surely conveys his misguided and naive ideas to young, impressionable minds. Sure it all sounds so good and fits perfectly with the "make love, not war" still permeating colleges campuses, but when these ethereal concepts go awfully wrong, when the forces of evil gain footing and power, it is mostly the non-academia American that has to clean up the mess.
If Prof. Stern would be attacked for being a Jew by someone who believes that Shariah law gives him the right to kill any Jew, the good professor would not ask his students for help, but he would call one of those blue-collar, not-so-educated police officer or soldier to put his or her life on the line to save his elitist life.

This is typical of academia, though, and we, the population at large, must recognize it. Our duty as Americans is to inform ourselves about the realities that Stern is ignoring, because, if and when the time comes, sheep like Stern will be the first to be sacrificed by the enemy.

Just my thoughts!