Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
After declaring that he's "all about" the constitution and the bill of rights, Lt. Gov. of Tennessee Ron Ramsey -- also a candidate for governor this year -- tells a resident at a townhall meeting that Islam may not actually be a religion and therefore they may not have the right to build mosques in that state. Seriously. Watch this video. The relevant stuff starts at about 3:10.
"Now, you know, I'm all about freedom of religion. I value the First Amendment as much as I value the Second Amendment as much as I value the Tenth Amendment and on and on and on," he said. "But you cross the line when they try to start bringing Sharia Law here to the state of Tennessee -- to the United States. We live under our Constitution and they live under our Constitution." ..."Now, you could even argue whether being a Muslim is actually a religion, or is it a nationality, way of life, cult whatever you want to call it," Ramsey said. "Now certainly we do protect our religions, but at the same time this is something we are going to have to face."
Politics
Comments
Muslim is a nationality? Can't we buy this dumb fuck a map, and ask him to point out the county of Islam?
But reading the post and watching him leads to a bigger question: Is it possible for Ron Ramsey "to have to face" anything given that his head is as far up his own ass as it is?
Posted by: Holytape | July 29, 2010 10:10 AM
Funny. I've heard plenty of Christians describe Christianity as "a way of life".
Posted by: Chris | July 29, 2010 10:12 AM
Thus spake the true believer. This other faith - which is no crazier than mine - isn't a proper religion.
All those millions of Muslims who've got Tennessee on their 'Where I'd like to live in the West' lists (probably between Belfast and Bratislava) must be crossing it out - though more in sorrow than in anger, I'm sure.
Posted by: valdemar | July 29, 2010 10:16 AM
Who tried to bring Sharia law to Tennessee, now? And does Ramsey think that if we acknowledge Islam to be a religion, we have to live by it?
Posted by: Gretchen | July 29, 2010 10:17 AM
Ron Ramsey: I value the First Amendment as much as I value the Second Amendment....
I seriously doubt that.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 29, 2010 10:18 AM
So, this loony has decided that if a mosque is built in his county, Sharia law will suddenly trump all other laws in the state? Yes, that's what he said. I listened to the whole video. He tap danced around it a bit by mentioning the Constitution, but really, that's what he said. I have to stop watching this stuff. It gives me a headache behind my eyes.
Posted by: Ellie | July 29, 2010 10:20 AM
Well in a way he is right. What is the definition of a religion? Cult? Made up mythical BS? Why is one group a cult and a similar a religion? A cult uses brainwashing, physical control, humiliation, etc to bend you to the belief....how that sounds like IsLame to me. But you are not forced to be IsLame-k! Really? Try being a secular girl in shorts and halter and in Iran! You may not be forced into being IsLame-k but you are forced to practice its rules.
But back to the point who or what decides if a group is a religion? And these whoever change their mind? It may be too late for IsLame to be changed but why not ask.
Posted by: L.Long | July 29, 2010 10:21 AM
Huh. Even the Nation of Islam isn't a nationality.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | July 29, 2010 10:24 AM
Ramsey and his statements put me in mind of something that Abraham Lincoln once said. Upon viewing a hastily built railroad trestle crossing Potomac Creek Lincoln is recorded as observing, "There is nothing in it save bean poles and corn stalks."
My research shows that some people dearly love bean poles and corn stalks. I note also that bean poles and corn stalks are gone at the end of growing season.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 29, 2010 10:26 AM
No, really. That's it.
Boy Howdy, if that only sounds like Islam to you, you're not very familiar with American Christianity, are ya?You realize bullshit like that is why islamophobes are typically called racists, right? Ignore the bad things the white person religion does in favor of looking at the brown person religion.
Posted by: Rutee | July 29, 2010 10:26 AM
Now, you could even argue whether being a Muslim is actually a religion, or is it a nationality, way of life, cult whatever you want to call it...
Yeah, you could argue about that, if you never bothered to get even a junior-high-level education in any of the relevant concepts, and don't give enough of a shit to pick up a "For Dummies" book on the subject. (And yes, I'm pretty sure there is an "Islam for Dummies" book on the market. Ignorance is no excuse, and there's no excuse to be ignorant -- especially NINE YEARS after 9/11.)
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 29, 2010 10:27 AM
What about all those "non-denominational" Christians who claim they they are not a religion? Maybe their churches should be banned too.
Posted by: Ericb | July 29, 2010 10:28 AM
I bet this will become the new Christianist talking point: When the founders spoke of "freedom of religion" they naturally meant "freedom of the religion", as in the true religion, to differentiate it from all the other, fake, wrong, Satanic, Non-Southern-Baptist pseudo-religions. For everyone knows what kind of fanatically Christian, theocratic crusaders the founders were.
Posted by: Phillip IV | July 29, 2010 10:30 AM
L. Long said:
It doesn't matter, insofar as the law is concerned. The First Amendment protects your right to believe and espouse whatever made up mythical BS you want, and erect monuments to it if you want, regardless of what you call it.
And that sounds like third-grade level linguistic creativity to me.
....in Iran. And some other countries. But not the U.S. Your point?
Posted by: Gretchen | July 29, 2010 10:32 AM
Of course it's a cult. Just like Xtianity. Duh.
Posted by: uke | July 29, 2010 10:35 AM
I'm not sure whether that was meant seriously or not, but in case it was - nonsense. Just in my lifetime I've watched Christianity evolve away from "feed the poor and hungry" to "defend the capitalists at all costs," on the right; meanwhile, I've watched many otherwise-conservative Christians quietly discard a couple thousands years worth of rules on sexual conduct. Or, if you want to go further back, how did a rural, charismatic cult come to be an organized religion based on urban institutions? All claiming to be following the same religion? And if Christianity is so malleable, why not Islam?
There are bad things going on in Islam today, even more so that the bad things going on in Christianity. But no matter how much they read the Quran, Muslims will still make of their religion what they want it to be, for better or worse.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | July 29, 2010 10:36 AM
For today’s edition of Good News/Bad News we examine the three way gubernatorial race in Tennessee.
Good News: Reason impaired and bigoted candidate Ron Ramsey is running in third place.
Bad News: Since making his idiotic statements about Islam his poll numbers have jumped 9 points.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 29, 2010 10:38 AM
Atheism is a religion; Islam is not.
Posted by: Dr X | July 29, 2010 10:40 AM
I predict that these statements will have absolutely no negative effects for a gubernatorial candidate in Tennessee. Indeed, one might say that Ramsey is really putting the goober into gubernatorial.
Posted by: peter | July 29, 2010 10:42 AM
L. Long, #7: Try being a secular girl in shorts and halter and in Iran!
Someone already mentioned that this is of dubious relevancy while we're discussing First Amendment issues here in the USA.
The point I want to make is that of all the rights violations that occur in theocratic Iran, the first one that came to your mind is that there are restrictions on how girls dress.
Seriously. Of all the ways women are denied their rights in Iran, the most important to you is that they can't dress sexy enough for you?
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 29, 2010 10:46 AM
"We live under our Constitution and they live under our Constitution."
Correct. Read it.
"But you cross the line when they try to start bringing Sharia Law here to the state of Tennessee" "...at the same time this is something we are going to have to face."
Probably true.
Posted by: Buffoon | July 29, 2010 10:51 AM
@Chris: Funny. I've heard plenty of Christians describe Christianity as "a way of life".
I've even heard some Christians say that Christianity isn't a religion, but a "connection to God".
Posted by: Emily | July 29, 2010 10:52 AM
Question is, does he "value" the 9th Amendment?
Posted by: Joe Shelby | July 29, 2010 11:05 AM
I wonder if he thinks global warming is a religion.
Posted by: mb | July 29, 2010 11:10 AM
I'm working on a masters in Islamic studies (and I'm an atheist, go figure), so I'll take an opportunity to rant for a second about how dumb this statement is.
Okay, sure, to some Muslims Islam is more than a religion. It can also serve as a guide for political and social life. But can we not say the same for Christianity as it is interpreted by many Christians, particularly in the U.S. where the concept of America as a "Christian nation" has now become so popular?
By that same token then, is Christianity somehow not a religion? Is Christianity undeserving of "protection?"
I mean, as an atheist I think all religions are undeserving of government protection but if you think the Constitution somehow makes the kind of distinctions Ramsey trying to suggest that it does, you're loony tunes.
Anyway, he also called Islam a "cult." Nearly a quarter of the global population adheres to Islam and by some estimates its the world's fastest growing religion. A cult? Sorry, but when I think "cult" I imagine the Branch Davidians or the Heaven's Gate crowd, not 23% of humanity.
I feel odd standing up for Muslims, considering that I disagree with the basic premise of Islamic beliefs (ie that God exists), but the truth is that if we want to avoid the next 9-11, folks like Ramsey need to pull their heads out of their asses.
I'm not saying we have to pay Islam some kind of passive respect just because its a religion, but we do need to acknowledge that there are Muslims pretty much everywhere in America, that they're productive members of society and that they're not second class citizens or inferior in some way. Yes, there are aspects of Islam that we may find distasteful but expressions of bigotry and intolerance like this are not going to bring about the kind of change that a lot of us want to see in the Islamic world.
Okay, yes, the Islamic world has to make the same kind of effort with regard to how it treats the "West" but the road to reconciliation, peace and understanding has to start somewhere. It may as well start with us and it may as well start now.
Posted by: woodstein312 | July 29, 2010 11:15 AM
In Bible Belt English (BBE), "cult" means any religion that's not Pentecostal, Evangelical or Southern Baptist. (Moderate Baptists don't qualify, BTW.) Islam, the Hated-Religion-of-the-Hour, is way off the BBE scale of "cultic religions." Also on that spectrum are Scientology, the LDS, Jehovah Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Catholics, and anything New Age-y. Mainstream Protestant churches (the "lukewarm" ones) are not considered cults, but they're not "true" Christians, because their services are not dominated by crazy people babbling and screaming, and besides, they're too liberal. Jews get a special dispensation, because of all that End Time folderol.
To put it more succinctly, in BBE, a cult is "any religion that ain't us." Ramsey is clearly playing to his audience, but I'd lay odds he believes every word he says.
Scary.
Posted by: wheatdogg | July 29, 2010 11:18 AM
I'm curious to hear someone's definition of a religion that includes Christianity and Judaism but excludes Islam.
Crudely Wrott - I'm not sure your Lincoln anecdote is applicable to this situation. He was, in fact, marveling at the engineering of the bridge. There are several versions reported, but they all contain something like:
"That man Haupt has built a bridge across Potomac Creek, about 400 feet long and nearly 1000 feet high, over which loaded trains are running every hour, and, upon my word, gentlemen, there is nothing in it but beanpoles and cornstalks.'"
Ramsey's argument couldn't hold the weight of a fly.
Buffoon - That was quite the dishonest little edit job you did, trying to make it appear that the phrase "something we are going to have to face" referred to Sharia Law, rather than the question of whether Islam is actually a religion.
Posted by: Taz | July 29, 2010 11:35 AM
How embarrassing for the US that we have such ignorant jerks running for public office.
Posted by: Caterina | July 29, 2010 11:41 AM
Dear Ron,
This time, sir, you have gone too far.
You have embarrassed me for the last time.
I'm leaving you.
Signed,
Your only functioning brain cell
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | July 29, 2010 12:36 PM
"But you cross the line when they try to start bringing Sharia Law here to the state of Tennessee"
Funny but I was thinking the same thing about Christians trying to use their religion to outlaw abortions.
Posted by: Tom | July 29, 2010 1:09 PM
@Caterina @28,
Running and winning too. Gingrich was Speaker of the House. He has expressed some of the dumbest ideas wrt the NYC mosque, uttered anywhere. The difference between him and Ron Ramsey is Newt doesn't believe it, Ron does. That last sentence is pure speculation and could be wrong on both counts.
Posted by: MikeMa | July 29, 2010 1:12 PM
Concerning the difference between "religion" and "cult":
As sets of ideas, there is no difference.
As movements that attempt to spread and implement those ideas, a religion is established and accepted across whole populations and can thus rely on bandwagon to gain new recruits, whereas a cult is small and not widely accepted and has to rely on other methods e.g. establishing in-groups (cult members) and out-groups (everyone else).
Both cults and religions can be brutal to those who attempt to leave.
Posted by: amk | July 29, 2010 1:54 PM
"A cult is a religion with no political power." -- Tom Wolfe
Taz, see http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?MarkerID=2194 for the Lincoln story.
Posted by: anon | July 29, 2010 2:30 PM
Just another low life spouting the same crap as the other idiots.
Posted by: Paen | July 29, 2010 2:33 PM
Great post, amk. In light of it, though, it's curious that so many Christians consider Mormonism to be a cult. True, it's still more or less relegated to a particular geographical section of the country, but it's rapidly gaining converts and influence in other areas, as well.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 29, 2010 2:39 PM
I'd like to suggest a different linguistic hypothesis regarding cults and religions: generally speaking, cults are those religions that you don't like or that you think are illegitimate. (There is likely an element of the "Other" in there as wheatdogg suggests @26.) To Sadie's point, many Christians consider Mormonism a cult because they find it to be an illegitimate religion trying to piggyback on "true" Christianity (and other sects like the JWs would probably be included in that same category for this group). It also explains (at least to me) why there is a tendency for the anti-religious to call any religion a cult, since all religions are illegitimate to them.
I happen to agree with woodstein312 regarding the connotation of the term: I think of tiny radical fringe groups, not large groups like LDS or Islam. If I hear someone call Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. a cult, that to me speaks more about the prejudices of the speaker than it does about the religions being referred to.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | July 29, 2010 3:04 PM
"In light of it, though, it's curious that so many Christians consider Mormonism to be a cult."
I've had a good friend tell me she looks at religions and sees "a body of work": music, writings, etc., and these serve to keep the ideas alive and attract new adherent.
Cults, on the other hand, don't have anything similar; members are strictly controlled and unquestioning obedience from members is expected.
Posted by: dean | July 29, 2010 3:05 PM
@#27: Taz, when I first read the account of Lincoln viewing the Potomac Creek Bridge I got the distinct impression that he was rather amazed that the whole thing actually hung together and bore the weight of the trains that crossed its span.
Since then I've used the "bean poles and corn stalks" figure of speech to describe anything of dubious engineering and construction, much like the dangerous staircase I will be trying to make safe tomorrow. I marvel that it has not fallen over by now.
Thanks for the observation nonetheless.
@#33: "A cult is a religion with no political power." -- Tom Wolfe
So, a religion without political power is a cult and a cult with clout is a religion. Makes perfect sense to me and seems not to bother very many people who belong to religions . . . err, to cults . . . now I'm getting confused.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 29, 2010 3:29 PM
Hey, if the Southern states ever want to succeed again, I say let 'em. *
* Does anyone north of the line have a couch this Georgian can sleep on?
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | July 29, 2010 3:50 PM
"it's curious that so many Christians consider Mormonism to be a cult."
That's because these Christians use theological definition of cult instead of a sociological/psychological definition. It shows the extent to which "cult" has become a convienent perjorative. The sociological/psychological definition which entails a fringe religion using underhanded forms of manipulation is probably more widely used. Christians, mostly conservative evangelicals, started using the word cult to describe (brand) groups like the LDS and the JW's for simply not having the same theology. Not believing in the trinity would make a group into a cult regardless of whether they use coercive methods of indoctrination.
Posted by: Bill in NC | July 29, 2010 4:03 PM
@L. Long #7
Others have already fisked your silliniess, but I would just like to add that IsLame and IsLamek are new to me. And I find them just as sophomoric and pointless as Rethuglican and Democrip and the like. Make your point with facts and reasoned arguments, not mudslinging on a par with scribbling "teacher sucks" on your TrapperKeeper.
Posted by: chris | July 29, 2010 4:13 PM
@ chris,
I've never heard the elementary school-level quip "IsLame," either. Nor have I heard "Democrip." Do the philistines who use the term mean "Democrypt," by any chance? Not that either term makes sense.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 29, 2010 4:23 PM
There are a lot of Muslims out there (like the Muslim Brotherhood, parent organization of CAIR, ISNA... and Hamas) who believe their national governments are illegitimate and the only legitimate government is a worldwide caliphate under Shari'a.
An entity commanding allegiance above all things sounds a lot like a nationality.
Posted by: Cynical | July 29, 2010 4:58 PM
By the same token, look at all the Christian tax protestors who insist they are "citizens of the kingdom of God" and therefore do not have to pay taxes.
There's a reason we don't let the kooks make the rules.
Posted by: DaveL | July 29, 2010 5:02 PM
Sadie, I would guess (having never heard the pejorative before) that Democrip is a portmanteau of Democrat with the slur crip, short for "cripple." I could be wrong, though.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | July 29, 2010 5:37 PM
Isn't there some kind of Supreme Court test for determining what is and is not classified as a "religion" for testing First Amendment cases? I know it veers into the problem of government deciding what is and is not a religion, but if a judge can't decide what constitutes a religion, then she can't know if it needs protecting or not.
Posted by: Scott F | July 29, 2010 6:12 PM
To determine whether an action of the federal or state government infringes upon a person's right to freedom of religion, the court must decide what qualifies as religion or religious activities for purposes of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Religion
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss16/gunn.shtml
Posted by: Owen | July 29, 2010 6:28 PM
Oh, I thought it was a gang reference.
I have heard multiple uses of the word "Democrap." But as has been said, such things should make eight year olds sniff and say "That's childish."
Posted by: Gretchen | July 29, 2010 6:47 PM
Cynical,
So Bosnians, Persians, Malaysians, Indonesians, Arabs, (many) Indians, Uighers, Afghanis, Uzbeks, etc., are possibly all one nationality? I'll buy you a multi-city plane ticket to all those places if you promise you'll try to persuade people everywhere you go that this is true. Be sure to videotape the results so I get my money's worth.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 29, 2010 7:22 PM
@ James Hanley #49,
LOL.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 29, 2010 7:28 PM
Posted by: Rutee | July 29, 2010 9:38 PM
Huh. I value myself more than I value my country. I guess that makes me a nationality. I can live with that. :D
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 30, 2010 1:38 AM
Sadie Morrison - Well, no 'Honourable Order of Azaria (with Gumnut Clusters)' for you then! ;) - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | July 30, 2010 4:44 AM
L.Long - "Try being a secular girl in shorts and halter..."
I have, the results were not pretty!* - Dingo
----
* One can try new experiences, or new ideas, but as for trying to be a completely different sex, age and body-type, not so much.
"The road? Pfft every-one's been the road!" - Q
Posted by: DingoJack | July 30, 2010 4:58 AM
An entity commanding allegiance above all things sounds a lot like a nationality.
Um, no, dumbshit, the entity is not the same as the nationality, even when both of them really do exist as alleged. And in this case, the "nationality" of Islam does not exist. Notice how the entity you speak of hasn't actually managed to CREATE that caliphate they want? That's probably because they can't find enough people to believe in this "nationality of Islam" you're blithering about.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 30, 2010 8:55 AM
"nationality, way of life, cult"
Is "race" the word he was looking for?
Posted by: Christophe Thill | July 30, 2010 10:34 AM
Here's another GOP candidate for governor in TN, Basil Marceaux, taking advantage of equal access to the media:
And it was my interpretation that Democrip was a gang reference, as in, the Democrips are destroying the neighborhood, what with their stealing and gunplay and such like that there. But as with most things childish and curlish, it really doesn't make much sense.
Posted by: chris | July 30, 2010 9:00 PM
Lefties are so braindead. Sharia is a system of laws boneheads. It's not just a religion, look at places like Saudi Arabia. Is it just a religion? NO. It's a religion AND a system of government combined. And people have a right to be concerned about it because many Muslims believe that the only way their faith can exist in it's purest form is to not to exist alongside the government, but BE the government.
Maybe this guy didn't say it well, but he has a point. Many Muslims do not want their religion to exist alongside others but completely supplant our system of govt.
Posted by: mroberts | July 30, 2010 10:03 PM
It's a religion AND a system of government combined.
No, dumbshit, it's not _A_ system of government, it's a religion of about a billion people under MANY different systems of government. Look at places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Thailand, Algeria, Morocco, Somalia, India, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, a few others, and a bunch of Muslim minority communities within non-Muslim countries. Us East Coast cosmopolitan liberals know there's Muslims living under a system of government very different from Saudi Arabia -- and not trying to destroy it.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 30, 2010 10:17 PM
No, dumbshit, it's not _A_ system of government, it's a religion of about a billion people under MANY different systems of government. Look at places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Thailand, Algeria, Morocco, Somalia, India, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, a few others, and a bunch of Muslim minority communities within non-Muslim countries. Us East Coast cosmopolitan liberals know there's Muslims living under a system of government very different from Saudi Arabia -- and not trying to destroy it.
If Sharia is not a system of governing laws, why is there now a parallel legal system in Britain where Sharia reigns? Just because Sharia is not the ruling legal system in some countries does not mean that many Muslims don't want it to be. We have a right to be concerned about moves to replace our system of laws with Sharia, which is exactly Ramsey is pointing out.
What never ceases to amaze me is how much slack liberals give Muslims and how much they bash Christianity. You lefties have grown up in a country predominantly Christian, yet you seem to think Christianity is a much greater evil than Islam. Again, liberals are utterly braindead. If it had been radical Christians that brought down the twin towers, do you think liberals would have tolerated the building of a Christian church on ground zero and the dedication of the building on 9/11/2011?
Posted by: mroberts | July 30, 2010 11:18 PM
mroberts,
Sharia is not a system of laws. Rather it is a concept referencing a law's acceptableness within the Muslim religion, in consideration of Islamic theology. But it is most definitely not a discrete legal system. Islamic scholars debate about whether particular laws, created secularly, are sharia or not.
And it is not a parallel legal system in GB. That's a right-wing lie that you fell for, hook, line and sinker. All it is is a form of private mediation, in which people who agree to abide by a ruling based on an Islamic approach can resolve their disputes, rather than take them into the legal system. Just like you and a neighbor could agree to have a Christian minister mediate, and agree to abide by his decision. But it's not binding, and not legally enforceable. So it's not a parallel legal system.
As usual, you're making a pretense of superior knowledge while spewing BS that a five minute internet search would show you is false.
And the Bible that you believe in says not to bear false witness. I don't expect any person to be sinless, but I think it's fair to expect believers to actually try to take their commandments seriously.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 30, 2010 11:29 PM
And it is not a parallel legal system in GB. That's a right-wing lie that you fell for, hook, line and sinker. All it is is a form of private mediation, in which people who agree to abide by a ruling based on an Islamic approach can resolve their disputes, rather than take them into the legal system. Just like you and a neighbor could agree to have a Christian minister mediate, and agree to abide by his decision. But it's not binding, and not legally enforceable. So it's not a parallel legal system.
Really? Sounds like a parallel system to me:
"ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.
The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.
Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.
Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.
It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.
Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.
Siddiqi said: “We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.”
The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future “seems unavoidable” in Britain.
In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes. "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece
Posted by: mroberts | July 30, 2010 11:47 PM
Okay, yes, the Islamic world has to make the same kind of effort with regard to how it treats the "West" but the road to reconciliation, peace and understanding has to start somewhere. It may as well start with us and it may as well start now.
Yeah, go ahead and keep trying to reconcile. In the meantime, they'll keep trying to conquer you.
Posted by: mroberts | July 30, 2010 11:53 PM
mroberts:
I can't actually speak for all liberal commentators here, of course (especially since I rarely comment myself, so I haven't had direct interaction with them), but I'm feeling a trifle saucy at the moment, so I'll take a stab at it anyway. I think the number one answer to your question would go something like this....
You are now free to whine about the language and tone of this message.
Posted by: Michael Hoaglin | July 30, 2010 11:55 PM
In the meantime, they'll keep trying to conquer you.
I'm sure they will. The problem is, you've already surrendered. You would sacrifice constitutional rights to protect yourself from the Islamic menace. Just as your ideological forbears would sacrifice constitutional rights to protect themselves from the red menace, the yellow menace, the Irish menace, etc., etc. Every threat is always the worst one ever, and we can't possibly fight it unless someone gives up their liberty.
Posted by: Taz | July 31, 2010 12:25 AM
You would sacrifice constitutional rights to protect yourself from the Islamic menace. Just as your ideological forbears would sacrifice constitutional rights to protect themselves from the red menace, the yellow menace, the Irish menace, etc., etc. Every threat is always the worst one ever, and we can't possibly fight it unless someone gives up their liberty.
I've surrendered? You're kidding right? I'm the one that is willing to admit there's a threat from Islam and I'm the one who has surrendered? You keep wanting to see Islam through Western liberal eyes. There IS no reconciliation with Islam. It's either convert or die. Even the name "Islam" means "submission". How do you possibly think you will reconcile with people that think like this? The best you can hope for is coexistence, that's it. And you will coexist peacefully only by being strong. And being strong does not mean having to keep up constitutional rights. Don't make assumptions that I support things like the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretaps. I don't.
Posted by: mroberts | July 31, 2010 12:37 AM
My Esteemed Mr Bee -
Thailand??? I think you mean Singapore or Malaysia rather than the staunchly Buddhist Thailand.
Your Humble and Obedient Servant
Mr. D Jack
Posted by: MrDingoJack | July 31, 2010 12:38 AM
mroberts, your contention that no one here but you recognizes the threat from Islamic terrorists is a load of bullshit, as is your claim that we hate Christianity but love Islam. We're just not willing to share your apparent notion that Muslims are a monolithic group who are all violent and anti-democratic. And we're justly revolted by the newest right-wing tactic of trying to define Islam as "not really a religion" so the first amendment "sorta doesn't" apply.
So you don't want to limit the constitutional rights of Muslims in any way? Your just trying to warn us that god-besotted terrorists are a threat? Well, thanks for that unique perspective. You're a real voice in the wilderness.
Posted by: Taz | July 31, 2010 1:10 AM
We're just not willing to share your apparent notion that Muslims are a monolithic group who are all violent and anti-democratic.
Really? But aren't all Tea Partiers racist? Aren't all Christians women hating, gay hating, abortion doctor killing, bigots?
And we're justly revolted by the newest right-wing tactic of trying to define Islam as "not really a religion" so the first amendment "sorta doesn't" apply
I by no means am making that argument. Islam certainly is a religion that is subject to the first amendment. My only contention is that Islam is also a system of government that many Muslims want to enforce on every person on earth. I would at least like to see liberals take that seriously instead of dismissing it or making excuses for it. Liberals show a lot more tolerance for Islam than they do Christianity. While most of the car bombings in the world are perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam, Mayor Bloomberg speculated that the Times Square bomber was a homegrown terrorist that hated the healthcare bill. That is absolutely indicative of the stupid head-in-the-sand approach liberals have toward Islam. The world may not fit the picture of the world the liberal has in his head, but he will continue to insist that it does. Absurd.
Posted by: mroberts | July 31, 2010 1:20 AM
Really? But aren't all Tea Partiers racist? Aren't all Christians women hating, gay hating, abortion doctor killing, bigots?
Nope. And I never said they were.
My only contention is that Islam is also a system of government that many Muslims want to enforce on every person on earth. I would at least like to see liberals take that seriously instead of dismissing it or making excuses for it.
Islam is not a system of government. You haven't come close to making that case. Every religion has its own "laws" for its followers. And what exactly indicates that you take the threat seriously while liberals don't? Because you rant and rave about it constantly? Yeah, that's helping.
Liberals show a lot more tolerance for Islam than they do Christianity.
Again, bullshit.
Mayor Bloomberg speculated that the Times Square bomber was a homegrown terrorist that hated the healthcare bill.
This is supposed to prove something? Seriously, that's your argument? Bloomberg isn't even a liberal, and if he was, so what? The idea that conservatives in general have a better grasp of reality than liberals is laughable. You can find those on both sides who are a few slices short of a loaf, but lately the conservatives have been dominating the crazy-talk.
Posted by: Taz | July 31, 2010 2:23 AM
Islam is not a system of government. You haven't come close to making that case. Every religion has its own "laws" for its followers.
It IS a system of government. In Saudi Arabia, all laws derive from Islamic law. How is Sharia not a system of government in that nation?
http://countrystudies.us/saudi-arabia/51.htm
Posted by: mroberts | July 31, 2010 2:32 AM
So if any country in the world became a Christian theocracy, all of Christianity would be a system of government? Actually, isn't the Pope considered a head of state?
The distinctions you're trying to make serve one purpose - to justify Islam being treated differently than any other religion under the laws of this country.
Posted by: Taz | July 31, 2010 2:43 AM
Ah - but Taz 'Islamofascists' actually believe in something, Christians, not so much... ;) - Dingo
----
Go on Mrroberts, you can say it, 'Fatwah Envy'.
Now that's the really reason isn't it :D
Posted by: DingoJack | July 31, 2010 3:41 AM
With the exception of 'Even the name "Islam" means "submission"', you just described every single authoritarian religion on the planet.
There is no one Islam, just as there is no one Christianity or Judaism. There are would-be theocrats in all of them, who will never be happy until everyone submits to the authority they pretend to.
You're 180 degrees wrong. Being strong means exactly that- it means maintaining a strong system of secular law, which in the U.S. includes our constitutional rights. That is the phalanx that has defended Western civilization against Christian theocracy for centuries and there's every indication it works just as well against Islamists.
Posted by: DaveL | July 31, 2010 5:45 AM
The use of 'sharia courts' is only acceptable in matters of civil law, and only with the express consent of both parties. That means they reside firmly within the private sphere, which pretty much by default means you should leave them the fuck alone.
Now, if you wanted to argue that this can be bad from social pressure from the islamic groups to use it even if they shouldn't because they'd be bad for them, you'd be right, but missing that this happens ALL THE TIME IN THE UNITED STATES with Christian stupidity, like Gay Conversion Therapy. Or for that matter, Scientology. And in business advertising. If we're going to start getting pissed about manipulation of private citizens, by private citizens, you've got a funny way of showing you care now.
The fact of the matter is, the 'Sharia' courts replace nothing. They operate in an area of the law where courts aren't necessary to impede on in the first place (It is, after all, perfectly legal to sort out your own personal disputes). You've had no problem with the Jewish equivalents, so I have no reason to believe you have a rational basis for opposing Islamic mediation services. If they could actually impede on matters of the criminal law, I'd be right there with you agreeing that it's horrid, but as it's civil mediation? You can shut your stupid trap.
Re: Enforcability: Arbitration is enforceable.
Wow. That's totally new. We've never seen that before.It's not like we don't have Christian Dominionists who are trying to actually turn the nation into a Christian Theocracy. It's not like the Mormons haven't ALREADY turned a state or two into as close as they can get.
If you're just now starting to care about this, I suspect you're either in accordance with one of the above groups, or you're a racist, because the first time you cared is when brown people did it.
When there's something serious to worry about, I'll get right on that. Muslims have far less political power in the US than the Mormons or Dominionists do, however, so I'm going to set my priorities accordingly.Posted by: Rutee | July 31, 2010 10:10 AM
mroberts: the article you cite is explicitly published as commentary, not news. Note the word "comment" in the URL. Furthermore, even this alarmist commentary admits that "Sharia courts" only apply in civil cases, and only when both parties agree in advance to be bound by them. Here, try reading the article you rely on to back up your stupid hysteria:
It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.
"It has now emerged?" What, these courts were meeting underground until some brave investigative journalist dug up the secret history? Do you really expect me to consider this breathless tone credible?
Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.
There you go. Hanley was right, and you're dead wrong. Even your own sources don't support you on this.
None of us agree with this arbitration crap, but the very least you can do is get your facts straight and know your enemy.
Oh, and yes, mroberts, you have indeed surrendered to the simpleminded bigotry that the Islamist terrorists have knowingly set out to inspire. They want a global armageddon between the West and all Muslims, and here you are, mindlessly pretending all Muslims, and all of Islam, are the enemy. Osama bin Laden thanks you.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 31, 2010 10:46 AM
Ditto what DaveL said. It is fear that causes people to say we must abandon some of our constitutional rights to defend ourselves against the threat of terrorism. Strong and courageous people say we can defend ourselves against the threat of terrorism without giving up our constitutional rights.
Remember what Ben Franklin said, "Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for a little security deserve neither." I think Mr. Franklin would disagree with mroberts as well. (And if he were alive today, what a fantastic blogger he would be!)
Posted by: James Hanley | July 31, 2010 11:14 AM
I'm late to this party, but I just have to wonder how "building a mosque" (which, if my guess is correct, was really an Islamic Center) turns into "imposing Sharia law on all of us."
Not to mention that Sharia law and the Bible have an awful lot of overlap.
Posted by: BaldApe | August 1, 2010 2:30 PM
Unlike all other mainstream religions Islam is a complete system, it has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is both a facade for all the other components and a tool used to accommodate them.
The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world to its “religion” but to establish Sharia law over the entire world, conversion, voluntary or otherwise comes after.
So it is really not a religion because premise is not “religious”, it is world domination.
Posted by: Socio | August 9, 2010 9:06 PM
There is a reason the founding fathers pushed for religious freedom and separation of church and state. Islam is protected with the others and we should respect that just like Christianity/Baptist/etc.
http://www.markerhistory.com/reuben-ford-and-hopeful-baptist-church-marker-ea-7/
Posted by: Jay | August 9, 2011 12:55 PM
There is a reason the founding fathers pushed for religious freedom and separation of church and state. Islam is protected with the others and we should respect that just like Christianity/Judaism/Islam/Buddhism/etc.
http://www.markerhistory.com/reuben-ford-and-hopeful-baptist-church-marker-ea-7/
Posted by: Jay | August 9, 2011 12:56 PM
Socio, #79: Unlike all other mainstream religions....
Clearly you haven't spent much time in a fundamentalist Protestant church.
-
The ultimate goal of Islam...
...can only be determined by the goals of the individual Muslims, much like all the other "mainstream religions." I would never just claim to know what the "goals of Protestant Christianity" is until I've spoken to several different Protestant Christians. And even then I wouldn't be surprised to get several different answers.
Posted by: Chiroptera | August 9, 2011 2:33 PM