Majority Rules

I'm against it, naturally. So is Rod Dreher. He seems concerned, however, that American Muslims may be for it:

Trying to get at the heart of the matter, I asked if they thought sharia should be the law of the land in our secular pluralistic democracy. Another round of long-winded answers, amounting to, "It would never happen here." That's not what I'm asking, I said; should it happen here. Someone explained that Muslim community would never be big enough in this country to make that happen. Which is, of course, entirely beside the point, but we moved on. I had my answer.

Evasive! Well, obviously, I oppose efforts to impose sharia law on the United States in the strongest possible terms. I wonder if Dreher will join me in trying to get mail delivered on liquor stores open on Sundays. As bad as a sharia-style total ban on alcohol sales? Clearly not. And yet, I find this stuff annoying.

Comments

I wonder if Dreher will join me in trying to get mail delivered on liquor stores open on Sundays. As bad as a sharia-style total ban on alcohol sales? Clearly not. And yet, I find this stuff annoying.

Huh?

Posted by live | December 18, 2006 5:46 PM

Perhaps MY means "mail delivered and liquor stores open on Sundays"?

Anyway, I think I agree with the point MY is trying to make. The reason why Sharia would not and should not be established as the law in this country is the same reason why if I'm a legislator, I won't move to ban the sale of blood sausage and why the religious right must not and should not be allowed to push through legislation that reflects their peculiar morality: we are a Constitutional democratic republic whose legislature is to be limitted in its ability to curtail liberty, including freedom from a religious establishment.

Of course, the religious right would say "we don't want government to restrict your right to be Jewish, pagan or whatever, we just feel laws should reflect the Christian morality of the majority in this country" ... but that often per force ends up restricting religious practice: for example, Blue Laws that prevented businesses from being open on Sunday prevented Jewish business owners (who had to be open 6 days a week to stay afloat) from keeping the Sabbath.

Posted by DAS | December 18, 2006 5:57 PM

If I may translate Matt's words for the masses-- he's calling blue laws (limiting alcohol sales) a mild form of (Christian) sharia law.

Most victimless crimes (prostitution, gambling, drugs) are crimes because of majority religous views. Its like the English said of Puritans, they're against bearbaiting not for the pain it causes the bear, but the pleasure it gives the spectators.

Posted by beowulf | December 18, 2006 6:00 PM

For real, 100% crazy, check out Mark Krikorian's response to the Dreher interview, in which he wistfully wonders (for the third time!)why American Muslims can't be more like those nice interned Japanese of yore:

Monday, December 18, 2006

Love It or Leave It [Mark Krikorian]

Rod Dreher gives an account of a meeting with Dallas Muslim leaders, whose evasiveness and attempts at intimidation nicely butress my comparison a while back (see here and here) between the patriotism of mainstream Japanese American opinion during WWII and the ambivalence (at best) of mainstream Muslim American opinion today.

Posted at 3:39 PM
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGZlMGZmZWYzMjI5MjdmMTI0Mzg0NjRiZGFiYzc3YmE=

Posted by Julian | December 18, 2006 6:00 PM

I think Plano, near where Rod lives, was until recently in a dry county -- no booze saled. Texas still has 42 dry counties.

Posted by Ikram | December 18, 2006 6:13 PM

There must be much greater diversity within the Muslim community than the people I've met. They are pharmacists, doctors, nurses, scientists and business owners. They left their countries because they were tired of dictators both Islamic and secular. They wanted a better life and they found one in the United States.

They believe in Islamic Sharia Law about as much as American men believe the annual Southern Baptist nonsense about wives submitting to their husbands and whatnot. In other words, they chuckle and say "Hell yeah! That's the way it should be!" until their wives get wind of it, and wonder what's so funny.

Some are liberal, some are conservative and some are positively Any Randian, but as a bunch, you'll never find a more full-throated group of red white and blue Americans.

Posted by Jalmari | December 18, 2006 6:20 PM

You can't shake people of their delusion that such-and-such group doesn't want to assimilate. Even when you show them rock-solid evidence that virtually 100% of Spanish-speaking immigrants speak English as their primary language by the third generation, for example, they'll still believe that there's this reconquista enclave out there plotting against our American way of life. There's nothing you can do.

Posted by Steve | December 18, 2006 6:25 PM

I think Dreher likes Wine and other alcohol just fine (remmeber he is a Catholic/now Orthodox right wing religous nut!) so he'd probably be right with you on liquor stores.

But your overall point is still sound

Posted by Eric | December 18, 2006 6:32 PM

This post is asinine. Sunday blue laws are the Christian equivalent of sharia? Please.

Posted by Al | December 18, 2006 6:32 PM

There will always be tensions between religions and governments; witness the fight some American Christians are putting up over the separation of church and state.

If we believe in the separation of church and state, then we should keep trying to convince all religious groups - Muslims included - that no religion should be allowed to decide the law of the land. And we should keep reiterating, in public, that religious law - including sharia - is subordinate to the laws made by our democratically elected government, and may not be enforced by force within our borders.

Is that bigotry?

Posted by Mr. Noah | December 18, 2006 7:07 PM

Speaking of asinine, I'm pretty sure that MY conceded that Sunday blue laws were not the equivalent of sharia. But that's just me.

Posted by S. Tarzan | December 18, 2006 7:08 PM

Mr. Noah wrote:
that religious law - including sharia - is subordinate to the laws made by our democratically elected government, and may not be enforced by force within our borders.

Congratulations, Mr.Noah, for missing the point.

Posted by Ikram | December 18, 2006 7:09 PM

Oh, I see. Well, you know what, I can buy liquor on Sundays around here, so I got mine, jack.

Posted by live | December 18, 2006 7:18 PM

I am relatively liberal on alcohol/drug issues (for example, I believe 18 was probably a better drinking age than 21, definitely support legalization of medical marijuana, and would not be averse to total marijuana decriminalization), but to be so in thrall to alcohol that you can't go one day without buying it (you can, of course, drink previously-bought alcohol on Sunday to your heart's content) is pretty pathetic. And to compare this even slightly to a system in which Christians and Jews must pay a poll tax, non-monotheists (including Matt, who is, I believe, an atheist) are completely forbidden to practice their religion, and offenders of various kinds can be stoned to death, even with a face-saving "It's not as bad" remark, is an insult to the victims of Sharia law.

Posted by James Kabala | December 18, 2006 7:19 PM

I am sick and tire of the so-called Christians running everything. At same time, even my mailman deserve a day off. But why is it Sunday that is picked? Why not the Mislam holy day or the Jewish holy day? someone told me it was because of a Convention that the mailmen goto on Sundays, but that seems funny to me.

Anyway, we have ALOT of Christianity in our government for a so-called separation of church and state nation. We should be more like France, where religion is only in the churches and not out on the streets.

Keep it in the Church and give us are country back is what I say.

Posted by hillary for president | December 18, 2006 7:23 PM

and one other thing. What I think we should do is embrace the Mislams too. I don't think sharia is ok here yet but in nations where Sharia is allow, only Mislams are subject to it . The dhimmi (zimmi) are not expected to follow sharia.

Posted by hillary for president | December 18, 2006 7:26 PM

"mail delivered on liquor stores" clearly should be "mail delivered in liquor stores." A minor typo, but it makes the sentence rather baffling.

Posted by Steve | December 18, 2006 7:50 PM

Sharia law is very, very bad. If imposed, it will only have negative consequences. Here's a counterargument, though.

Government represent people. People have "morals." As long as a minority isn't around fighting against dry counties (or a judiciary doesn't think it infringes on the Constitution) the law stands. Labs of Democracy and all that.

It's not a good government argument to say that if, suddenly, tons of Muslim immigrants flooded the US, demanding sharia law, we should resist everything up front. That kind of no-compromise attitude alienates large minorities from the political system. Without a channel for their energies, they become more radical. The beauty/scary part of a Democracy is that it incorporates such a minority when its energies reach a certain threshold.

I vaguely remember hearing about a woman reformer who was using sharia law to back progressive ideas. Any one know who that was? Such efforts are easier within a political system.

Posted by Chris | December 18, 2006 7:51 PM

James Kabala:

"but to be so in thrall to alcohol that you can't go one day without buying it (you can, of course, drink previously-bought alcohol on Sunday to your heart's content) is pretty pathetic."

That's a little unfair. The point is it's inconvenient not to be able to buy alcohol for an entire day, specifically one of the only two days that most people have off, regardless of when you drink, or how often. Especially since the rationale for blue laws is completely religious in nature, so they shouldn't have to apply to anyone who doesn't follow that religion.

Matt clearly said it's not an equal comparison. And regardless of whether it's insulting to victims of sharia law or not, it's still a valid point.

Posted by benny | December 18, 2006 7:59 PM

James it is the general principle of the thing. If alcohol is legal to sell it should be legal to sell 7 days a week. If I'm going to a dinner party SUnday night I shouldn;t need to remmeber to pick up a bottle of wine on Saturday becasue of some people's silly beliefs.

Posted by Eric | December 18, 2006 7:59 PM

I don't understand this attitude of the righties that the Imams represent the American Muslims at large. Is that any more correct than the assertion that the Ted Haggards and Jerry Falwells represent the American Christians?

I think that the main motivation here is to somehow denigrate a whole religion and provide a justification for hating the Muslims. A side effect is that it becomes easier for the GOP base to accept the slaughter of the Iraqis.

Posted by gregor | December 18, 2006 8:16 PM

hillary for president said:

I don't think sharia is ok here yet but in nations where Sharia is allow, only Mislams are subject to it . The dhimmi (zimmi) are not expected to follow sharia.

Dhimmi are not expected to follow Islam - but they are most definitely expected to follow sharia. That's what creates the class called dhimmi in the first place. It is Sharia that tells them that they must accept themselves as inferiors to Muslims, must never build a house of worship higher than a nearby mosque, must pay the jizya, and so on. A dhimmi who violates such rules loses his protected status and is subject to being killed.

Posted by Russ | December 18, 2006 8:26 PM

Eric wrote:

I don't understand this attitude of the righties that the Imams represent the American Muslims at large. Is that any more correct than the assertion that the Ted Haggards and Jerry Falwells represent the American Christians?

Of course it's not. Many American Muslims are loyal first to the US; many are not particularly observant, just as many American Christians are not particularly observant. The issue is not the Imams "represent" American Muslims at large as it is that they represent a particularly aggressive strain of Political Islam which is growing in influence, and which is decidedly not interested in co-existence. Unfortunately, we rarely hear from the many "moderate" Muslims, while we hear very frequently from Christians who oppose Haggard, Falwell, etc.

Posted by Russ | December 18, 2006 8:32 PM

It may surprise many people that in the early nineteenth
century, separation of church and state was taken so seriously that Congress mandated that the mail must be delivered on Sundays:

"In 1830 a Senate committee reported negatively on a bill to abolish Sunday mail delivery. The report, written by Richard Johnson, a Kentucky senator and an active Baptist
leader, argued that laws prohibiting the government from providing service on Sunday would be an injustice to irreligious people or non-Christians, and would constitute a special favor to Christians. The report spelled out these
principles:

"'The constitution regards the conscience of the Jew as sacred as that of the Christian, and gives no more authority to adopt a measure affecting the conscience of a solitary individual than that of a whole community. . . If Congress shall declare the first day of the week holy, it will not satisfy the Jew nor the Sabbatarian. It will dissatisfy both and, consequently, convert neither. . . It must be recollected that, in the earliest settlement of this country, the spirit of persecution, which drove the pilgrims from their native homes, was brought with them to their new habitations; and that some Christians were scourged and others put to death for no other crime than dissenting from the dogmas of their rulers. . .

"'If a solemn act of legislation shall in *one* point define the God or point out to the citizen one religious duty, it may with equal propriety define *every* part of divine revelation and enforce *every* religious obligation, even to the forms and ceremonies of worship; the endowment of the church, and the support of the clergy. . .

"'It is the duty of this government to affirm to *all*--to the Jew or Gentile, Pagan, or Christian--the protection and advantages of our benignant institutions on *Sunday*, as well as every day of the week.'"
http://hirr.hartsem.edu/Bellah/articles_6.htm

Posted by David T | December 18, 2006 8:54 PM

I missed the point, eh? Then let me state my point a little more concretely. If we have a group of Christians who want to impose "Christian law" on the nation (such as prohibiting
"sodomy") we have to resist them. And if we have a group of Muslims who want to impose sharia, even for select communities, we have to resist them too. The fact that Christian theocracy is bad does not mean that Muslim theocracy is not.

So I don't see why the fact that Rod Dreher doesn't discuss Christian theocracy makes him any less right about the Muslim kind.

Posted by Mr. Noah | December 18, 2006 8:54 PM

Just to muddy the waters a bit, I'd like to point out that Sunday closings are NOT strictly a religious issue. After all, at least here in Massachusetts they used to apply to most retail businesses, not just liquor stores. They are there in part to protect small businesses which may not be able to schedule days off for their employees if they must be open seven days a week to compete. Sure, having the required closing on Sunday is a concession to the Christian majority. What practical alternative is there? I suppose you could require all businesses to be closed one day a week and let them choose which day.

But sharia? Bad. Very bad. And no, the Muslim community within a Western democracy cannot be permitted to impose it just on itself either. Its members are still citizens of the nation at large with the same rights.

Posted by applecor | December 18, 2006 9:32 PM

I've known a few Christians who think the US should be under Christian law. Even if they concede "it'll never happen"...

Posted by shecky | December 18, 2006 10:04 PM

"Even when you show them rock-solid evidence that virtually 100% of Spanish-speaking immigrants speak English as their primary language by the third generation..."

Well its not so rock-solid. A generation is what 25 to 30 years? We know that the grandchildren of Spanish speaking immigrants who came here 60 years ago speak Englih as their primary language.

Perhaps the culture has changed since then so that immigrant families arriving today are less likely to drop their native tongue and adopt English. Maybe you're right, maybe you're not, we won't know for sure until two generations from now, will we?

Posted by beowulf | December 18, 2006 10:23 PM

I've known a few Christians who think the US should be under Christian law. Even if they concede "it'll never happen"...

True, but they are assholes. Just like any Muslims who'd want Sharia Law.

Posted by moriarty | December 18, 2006 10:26 PM

Dhimmi are not expected to follow Islam - but they are most definitely expected to follow sharia. That's what creates the class called dhimmi in the first place. It is Sharia that tells them that they must accept themselves as inferiors to Muslims, must never build a house of worship higher than a nearby mosque, must pay the jizya, and so on. A dhimmi who violates such rules loses his protected status and is subject to being killed.

All the Dhimmi garbage is incredibly paranoid, weird, and you and the LGF crowd will know way more about it than 99% of 21'st century Muslims, but your central statement is just wrong. Non-Muslims under any form of Sharia law going back as long as there has been Sharia are subject to normal civil laws and anything beyond that was regulated by their own respective religious communities.

Just as a thought experiment: take everything you wrote, replace Muslim with Jew, dhimmi with goyim and fill in the rest with arcane, juicy, tidbits from the Talmud and see if you can't recognize the stark, scary, craziness you are swallowing.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 18, 2006 10:34 PM

Some Indian perspective here. In India, pretty much every religion gets to set its own civil law. Not criminal law mind you but civil. Since there is no such thing as "hindu law," the hindus get civil law that pretty much looks like the law any where else in the world. The Christians have civil law that looks similar also (presumably since the British were Christian?). The other religions: Buddhist, Jain, Sikh etc also all have civil law that is about the same as the universal. Needless to say this leaves out the Muslims. They have civil law crafted by their imams. This includes such situations as: polygamy being permitted if you're muslim, divorce laws being heavily tilted towards the husband etc.

Most interestingly, some 18 years ago the Supreme Court declared some aspects of Muslim civil law that deal with alimony unconstitutional because they were unequal towards women. Soon after, the majority Congress government managed to amend the Constitution to make it legal again, lest they lose their cherished "Muslim vote bank." (Of course, they lost it anyway, but that's a different story).

Posted by bhagavathy | December 18, 2006 11:02 PM

I suppose you could require all businesses to be closed one day a week and let them choose which day.

Why yes, you could.

Posted by Matt Weiner | December 18, 2006 11:11 PM

Not to be too snotty, but that would avoid religious impositions, allow small businesses to get a niche of "the one that's open the day the big store is closed," and also avoid that annoying thing where everything's closed on Sunday.

Posted by Matt Weiner | December 18, 2006 11:13 PM

Ed Marshall wrote:

Non-Muslims under any form of Sharia law going back as long as there has been Sharia are subject to normal civil laws and anything beyond that was regulated by their own respective religious communities.

I'm really surprised that you think so - I have not found any reliable source that agrees with you. Your claim would seem to imply that there is no such thing as jizya, that non-Muslims are permitted equal standing with Muslims (including the right to rebuild or repair their houses of worship). That would imply that every so-called scholar of Islam is an ignoramus. Except you, of course.

Replacing equivalent terms with Jewish ones may entertain you - but that proves nothing. Unless you really everyone to believe that every religion teaches the exact same thing.

Posted by Russ | December 18, 2006 11:54 PM

Whelp, a woman from Pakistan who is a co-worker of a friend was discussing this and how she is very glad never to go back to Pakistan because of the restrictive laws. But she said in Muslim communities in that region (upper midwest) there is a definite trend towards more restrictive customs and she hopes it stops.

Posted by MNPundit | December 19, 2006 12:39 AM

No one currently living on this planet has ever payed jizya (are the italics more spooky?). All three Abrahamic religions go back millenia and if you feel like cherry picking you can demonize any of them based on their official canons or theological add-ons later. It really is just replacing terms and it works. The schtick you glom on to is an exact retread of old 19th century Judenhass (which is interesting, you would think you could just dust off middle ages anti-muslim ideas but that doesn't play apparently).

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 19, 2006 12:44 AM

one word: trivialization

i'll keep this mind m. yglesias next time someone accuses a liberal of communism....

Posted by chet snicker | December 19, 2006 1:57 AM

Wow. Russ really is an extraordinarily creepy, weird, and ignorant person.

Unfortunately, we rarely hear from the many "moderate" Muslims, while we hear very frequently from Christians who oppose Haggard, Falwell, etc.

What an incredibly foolish thing to say. There are such Muslims speaking out constantly. The reason "we" (ie, Russ and friends) "rarely hear" from them is that Russ and friends REFUSE TO LISTEN.

Growing up I honestly thought mankind had left behind Russ' brand of sickness, at least in the U.S. Clearly I was wrong.

Posted by grh | December 19, 2006 2:22 AM

Matt Weiner said:

"Not to be too snotty, but that would avoid religious impositions, allow small businesses to get a niche of "the one that's open the day the big store is closed," and also avoid that annoying thing where everything's closed on Sunday."

Indeed, everything-closed Sunday is very annoying here in Germany. Since one of the two main parties is explicitly christian (and when discussing the matter of opening hours always makes sure to say that shops will close on sunday to keep it holy), it'll never change. However, Sunday is not the most annoying day of the week. I'm sure you can guess, but shopping on Saturday is a nightmare.

On another note, one might wonder when visiting Europe why there are so many churches (not just cathedrals, but run of the mill churches) when so few people go. How do they pay for all this? Easy: taxes! Sounds ridiculous, I know, but you can opt out. Well, more than ridiculous: I find it slightly offensive that the guvmint keeps track of which religion I claim to be.

Posted by bs23 | December 19, 2006 8:06 AM

I find it slightly offensive that the guvmint [in Germany] keeps track of which religion I claim to be.

Indeed. And in the U.S., the government keeps track of which political party you belong to. That, if anything, seems even more crazy.

Posted by Ryan | December 19, 2006 8:22 AM

"So I don't see why the fact that Rod Dreher doesn't discuss Christian theocracy makes him any less right about the Muslim kind."

Yup.

Posted by Petey | December 19, 2006 9:05 AM

Ed Marshall,

You're definitely wrong about all aspects of sharia being gone from the world. The law about not repairing or rebuilding holy places is still the law in Egypt, where about six million Christians live, and it comes directly from sharia. There are also extremely restictive rules on the Orthodox in Turkey, some of which originate from sharia. In the gulf states, many elements of non-Muslim worship are harshly restricted; Saudi Arabia basically bans non-Muslim religions outright (except for foreigners in private houses) and harshly represses any citizens who try to convert to another religion. All of this comes from and is justified by sharia. I'm pretty sure non-Muslims did have to pay the jizya under the Taliban, and I don't know what is happening in Somalia, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Now, of course, this has nothing to do with sharia in the US, which I agree is a ridiculous straw man. Basically, if you spend all your time and effort looking for something, you'll eventually find hints of what you want to find. I'm quite confident that the number of people in favor of sharia in the US is both miniscule and marginal, and it's only through the efforts of people like Dreher that it will have any oxygen to grow.

People need to have some faith in the awesome power of American assimiliation.

Posted by franck | December 19, 2006 9:27 AM

If there were ever a world in which there were a majority of people occupying this land who were Muslim, it would obviously be a vastly different world than the one we're currently on. Such a shift would be tectonic. It would be completely strange if the land weren't covered by sharia.

The question plays boo! with the notion about the chances and like with all such questions, "The world see you, too". We know more about the questioner than he thinks.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | December 19, 2006 11:41 AM

Re; Dhimmi are not expected to follow Islam - but they are most definitely expected to follow sharia.

Traditionally at least, Christian and Jewish communities in Islam lived under their own laws, at least as far as their internal and private doings went. For example, they were allowed to drink and sell alcohol to each other, and the Jews could charge interest on loans to non-Muslims (Christian laws also forbade this back then). Shari'a only came into play in their dealings with Muslims and the government. In Medieval Christendom, the same was treu for the Jews: they had their own laws in the Jewish ghettos, but were under the more general law outside of it.

Re; I've known a few Christians who think the US should be under Christian law

There is really no such thing as "Christian law". Christian nations, no matter how publicly pious, always had secular law codes derived from either the Romans or the Germamnic (or Slavic) barbarians they were descended from. The closest thing to Christian law would be the canon law of the Church, but that was never intended as more than the internal regulation of the Church. Even the old Papal States were governed in civil matters by a recension of the Emperor Justinian's Roman law code.

Re; There are also extremely restictive rules on the Orthodox in Turkey, some of which originate from sharia.

The restrictions on the Orthodox Church in Turkey derive from Kemal Ataturk's desire to have a purely secular and purely Turkish state. The Orthodox Church was outside this pale for two reasons, both religious and ethnic (nearly all Orthodox Christians in Turkey being Greeks)

Posted by JonF | December 19, 2006 1:33 PM

Indeed. And in the U.S., the government keeps track of which political party you belong to. That, if anything, seems even more crazy.

Uh, no. Given the role Government plays in administering primary elections, it seems considerably less crazy. Quite practical, in fact.

Posted by djw | December 19, 2006 3:22 PM

pretty sure non-Muslims did have to pay the jizya under the Taliban, and I don't know what is happening in Somalia, but I wouldn't be surprised.

That's known as making shit up.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 19, 2006 5:38 PM

I want my Licka mailed to me on sundays!

Posted by chad okere | December 20, 2006 1:06 AM

So, conservative pharmacists are skirting the law by denying women access to birth control and the day-after pill based on their moral standards. Yet Limbaugh has a prescription for Viagra and hes not married? WBR LeoP

Posted by Health Wizard | March 9, 2007 5:58 PM