![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I’ve noticed a trend among some elements of conservatism that suggest the West should fear Sharia, the legal code that Muslims derive from interpretation of Mohammed’s teachings. According to that narrative, the political elements of Islam, if not all Muslims are on a worldwide quest to bring every person under the guidance and control of Islam, and they will stop at nothing, including manipulation, deceit, and utilizing the law of progressive countries against them, first to make it illegal to speak out against the dangers of Islam, and then using that enforced silence to squelch anyone who might have caught on to their evil plot to take over the world. If this sounds more like it belongs in an episode of 24 than geopolitics, then you’re not far from the understanding of how big a threat this Sharia is supposed to be, and how foolish it is for people to entertain the thought of letting it gain any sort of foothold in any country, even if just set up as an alternative court system for cases where it won’t conflict with secular law.
But, much like that episode of 24, Joel and Mike’s famous chant comes in handy here. In the nuggets of a recently-released survey that had Christians in a tizzy saying “onoes! Less people identify themselves as Christian”, the number of those who did, on aggregate, was still significantly more than half (almost three-quarters, I think) of the population. If someone thinks that the United States is suddenly going to elect an openly Muslim leader, and one that has even a hint of wanting to institute changes to the country to make it more like the repressive regimes of the Middle East, then that person has a very low estimate of the intelligence of the populace and of the people who do the vetting for major party candidates. Most logical and sane people realize that there’s no way that any sort of repressive change like that will come in through the front door.
Which leaves the back door, and the favored Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt message: through incremental, harmless changes, the populace will slowly become accepting of radical Islamic ideas, and then at some critical mass point, will decide to put them into practice, achieving the ends of the radicals before anyone noticed it was happening. Perhaps the election of a closet radical or a sleeper Muslim will bring about these changes. Which sounds remarkably like one of the campaign smears used against candidate Obama, and one that has resurged among those same fringe circles based on the gesture of respect the President showed to the King of Saudi Arabia and their perception of his policies toward countries such as Iran. Thus, the need for vigilance and a willingness to stomp out Muslims, err, “Sharia” wherever it should appear, including the hydra-headed menace of “Sharia-compliant financing”.
Simple, right? Well, except for that part where the Constitution expressly forbids the establishment of a state religion. I suspect any lawyer could competently argue before any justice that instituting Sharia law in the United States would be tantamount to declaring Islam as the state’s religion, and thus a prohibited act. The only venue where this could succeed would be if the Constitution were changed first, and mucking about with the Constitution is not something that can be done lightly nor quietly. It would take the election of a significant number of Congresscritters all with the same orientation, and likely across both parties, to make that change. Where are you going to find that many people to run, and enough people to vote for them on that platform, in a country that is still overwhelmingly non-Muslim? Or how would you hide a conspiracy that massive without anyone noticing?
We close out this post with one more interesting thought. Many people believe the United States is a Christian nation. A segment of them believe it so much that they want to step over or repeal the First Amendment so as to establish the supremacy and state religion of their God so as to rule in a perfect Church-run fantasy. I don’t think those people have thought about what happens when the Christians lose control. “It’ll never happen”, they say. The Republicans thought they were establishing a “permanent majority” in the houses of Congress and the populace would elect Republican presidents from there on out. The Republicans were wrong. Why should anyone thinking they, or someone they don’t like, will be able to mystically create a more permanent hold based on something is just as varied between people?
But, much like that episode of 24, Joel and Mike’s famous chant comes in handy here. In the nuggets of a recently-released survey that had Christians in a tizzy saying “onoes! Less people identify themselves as Christian”, the number of those who did, on aggregate, was still significantly more than half (almost three-quarters, I think) of the population. If someone thinks that the United States is suddenly going to elect an openly Muslim leader, and one that has even a hint of wanting to institute changes to the country to make it more like the repressive regimes of the Middle East, then that person has a very low estimate of the intelligence of the populace and of the people who do the vetting for major party candidates. Most logical and sane people realize that there’s no way that any sort of repressive change like that will come in through the front door.
Which leaves the back door, and the favored Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt message: through incremental, harmless changes, the populace will slowly become accepting of radical Islamic ideas, and then at some critical mass point, will decide to put them into practice, achieving the ends of the radicals before anyone noticed it was happening. Perhaps the election of a closet radical or a sleeper Muslim will bring about these changes. Which sounds remarkably like one of the campaign smears used against candidate Obama, and one that has resurged among those same fringe circles based on the gesture of respect the President showed to the King of Saudi Arabia and their perception of his policies toward countries such as Iran. Thus, the need for vigilance and a willingness to stomp out Muslims, err, “Sharia” wherever it should appear, including the hydra-headed menace of “Sharia-compliant financing”.
Simple, right? Well, except for that part where the Constitution expressly forbids the establishment of a state religion. I suspect any lawyer could competently argue before any justice that instituting Sharia law in the United States would be tantamount to declaring Islam as the state’s religion, and thus a prohibited act. The only venue where this could succeed would be if the Constitution were changed first, and mucking about with the Constitution is not something that can be done lightly nor quietly. It would take the election of a significant number of Congresscritters all with the same orientation, and likely across both parties, to make that change. Where are you going to find that many people to run, and enough people to vote for them on that platform, in a country that is still overwhelmingly non-Muslim? Or how would you hide a conspiracy that massive without anyone noticing?
We close out this post with one more interesting thought. Many people believe the United States is a Christian nation. A segment of them believe it so much that they want to step over or repeal the First Amendment so as to establish the supremacy and state religion of their God so as to rule in a perfect Church-run fantasy. I don’t think those people have thought about what happens when the Christians lose control. “It’ll never happen”, they say. The Republicans thought they were establishing a “permanent majority” in the houses of Congress and the populace would elect Republican presidents from there on out. The Republicans were wrong. Why should anyone thinking they, or someone they don’t like, will be able to mystically create a more permanent hold based on something is just as varied between people?
