Sharia Law

I've traveled far and wide in my life. Visited many places, seen many sites, spent 10 years in Alaska, flew over to Berlin when the Wall came down and chipped away some of it to sell, seen six countries and two continents.

You come across odd things. I was in a place that had not just regular courts like any place would have, but religious courts.

These were "courts" where you could be falsely accused, have your accuser sit in judgment over you, have no jury, no advocate, no right of cross examination and no real appeals process. Your guilt, instead of being proved beyond a reasonable doubt, was assumed from the start and your only chance at even some mercy was to confess at once.

Why? Because it being a religious court, the presumption was that the judges were all divinely appointed and divinely inspired, such that they'd hardly call anyone before them unless they were already divinely inspired to know of their guilt!

"Confess that ye be a witch, and be saved!"

Such tribunals would mete out punishments ranging from loss of status and privileges and rights to even internal or external exile. And if any disagreed with these courts or their rulings, they were said to have turned against the Prophet, the Faith and the Creator!

Sound like hell? I thought so. Sound like why some of you don't want Sharia Law to have any place in the United States?

Well, surprise, because that place I described was Springfield, Illinois and the "religious court" was not Islamic, but from a Christian church I attended. How did I escape it's theocratic judgment?

By resigning. Because, oh yeah, freedom of religion. Which is what gave that church the right to have it's own courts, and me - and anyone else - the right to accept or deny it's jurisdiction.

That's the good news. That no one in the U.S. is required to submit to Sharia Law, Catholic Law, Methodist Law, or the Hearing I was once threatened with. Each of us is free to accept the justice of any of those courts, or to make our own personal judgment call as to the fairness of any of those courts.

Which is why I don't think Mayors and Town Councils should ban such religious courts the way they did in Irving, Texas. I don't think States should. And I sure don't think the Federal government should. It's an infringement on the 1st amendment rights of any who care to submit to such courts.

People forget - other courts, religious or otherwise - are perfectly legal. As long as they still are submissive to the over-riding authority of the United States. As long as one is not compelled to attend under threat of loss of liberty, limb or life.

You've all done it. If you've ever gone to arbitration over a contract or labor dispute. Or been to a college "Honor Court". Or accepted a write up from your boss. Or appealed to a zoning board or unemployment review. Or ran to your Dad to have him decide whether you or your brother was the biggest idiot in whatever your latest dispute was.

All these things - and dozens of more ways of conflict resolution - are "courts" in a sense. Some more than others, obviously, but all serve the same purpose. To resolve issues between two or more people.

Religious courts are legally unique in one way, because technically, though this is largely ignored nowadays, they are Constitutionally protected. The 1st Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law..." about religion, not "some laws about their means of conflict resolution".

Thus the Catholics are able to have their Ecclesiastical Courts. And the Methodists can judge their members based upon their scarily titled "Book of Discipline". And any church can excommunicate - after a court room trial by U.S. judges and juries? Nope, after their own trial done by any rules they care to have.

The court I was to be tried in, without advocate or jury or even the allowance of truth as a defense, was perfectly legal. And no Mayor or Governor would dare to try to forbid it. Because of it being one of the Christian faiths. It wouldn't even occur to them to try to forbid it.

The Islamic churches should have the same rights. To have their Sharia courts, hearings, and what not. Not to force women into hijabs or burkhas against their will. Not to insist that once a Muslim, you must forever be one.

But to aid in the disputes unique to them, involving property and marital issues in which all concerned are voluntarily accepting the judgment of their religious authorities and any are free to decline to accept such judgments if they do not find them fair.

And yes, it is perfectly acceptable and proper for secular judges to take religious law into account on things like divorce and family issues. One obvious example would be judging the validity of a marriage contract from an Islamic nation when the couple is in the U.S. and seek divorce.

This all has worked good for nearly 250 years, and without anyone being stoned for adultery or having had their hands cut off for theft.

I'm sure it can still work now.