Ignorance and fear mongering

I have recently seen some truly misguided and essentially fictitious posts re: Sharia. Most are based on somewhat less than zero real knowledge of what it is or where it is applicable. What is far worse, in my estimation, is that many of those who are the most vocal against Sharia, of which they know little, are cheer- leaders for what, in essence, amounts to similar concepts applied in the US by “Christians”. I’ll be specific later.  

Right off the top: as an atheist, I have no dog in this hunt. That also means that as a believer in (only) secular law, I take the First Amendment very seriously. It also means that I simply don’t care what you believe as long as it has no interface with or intrusion into with my life and that of other citizens who choose not to agree with your cosmic viewpoint. As John Lennon so aptly said, “Whatever gets you through the night – it’s alright” This manifests itself in several ways. It means I get along with persons of all faiths, and always have; in fact, far better in many cases than those disparate groups coexist with one another. It also means my lens of investigation isn’t warped by dogma.    

First off: Within Islamic discourse, šharīʿah refers to religious regulations governing the lives of Muslims. For many Muslims, the word means simply "justice," and they will consider any law that promotes justice and social welfare to conform to sharia.

In those instances where persons, some well-meaning, go berserk over what they have been told is the implementation of sharia in some towns with Muslim populations (Dearborn Michigan is the prime example) the source of their angst is usually something like this:

“In a surprise weekend vote, the city council of Dearborn, Michigan voted 4-3 to became (note improper tense) the first US city to officially implement all aspects of Sharia Law. The tough new law, slated to go into affect (note the misspelling of “effect”) January 1st, addresses secular law including crime, politics and economics as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, fasting, prayer, diet and hygiene.

The new law could see citizens stoned for adultery or having a limb amputated for theft. Lesser offenses, such as drinking alcohol or abortion, could result in flogging and/or caning. In addition, the law imposes harsh laws with regards to women and allows for child marriage.”

So, what’s the issue? This is an invented story from a site which admits that it is a fake news source. Sadly, the operators understand some people, eager to hate something” will ignore that fact and believe the lies. Here’s the disclaimer from the “source.”

“National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental.”

Other “stories” from this site include: “IRS Plans to Target Leprechauns Next,” “Boy Scouts Announce Boobs Merit Badge,” and “New CDC Study Indicates Pets of Gay Couples Worse at Sports, Better at Fashion Than Pets of Straight Couples.” And yet the haters, eager to hate the “other” leap to their pulpits.

Meanwhile, in the New York metro area, there are at least 17 ultra-orthodox Jewish communities where family law is frequently a matter for religious adjudication, not civil law. Where’s the uproar?

 Sharia, essentially, as the vast majority of American Muslims conceive it, would be similarly applicable as a resolution mechanism, primarily in the area of family law for Muslims who so choose. No one has ever even introduced a bill anywhere in the nation to institute sharia as civil or criminal law applicable to the population as a whole. If that were done, it would violate so many constitutional provisions as to be voided immediately anyway.

Now, on the other hand, if you are rabidly opposed to government, at any level, mandating religious principles be enacted into law, then recent attempts by state legislatures to impose the opinions of Evangelical Christians as relates to abortion should be a prime concern. So should their refusal to allow insurers to cover birth control. Understand, this is not a group choosing some degree of self-regulation within their community by mutual accord. Georgia’s recent late term abortion law driven by Evangelicals and, in truth, some other Christian groups seeks the imposition of specific religiously driven prohibitions and penalties to the entire body politic, irrespective of belief. Oddly enough, those who promote these incursions into the civil liberties of those with whom they disagree are the same in many cases who initially lauded Roe V. Wade as a “victory for personal liberty” until Lee Atwater and several Evangelicals turned it into a political football to gain votes.

Religious persons in America who bemoan what they fear and don’t understand are both ignorant and bigoted, which is a bad combination.