From Tha Alliance Defense Fund and USA Today:
On religious liberty, what would Kagan do?
Updated 3d 23h ago
Comments 60
Recommend 5 E-mail
Save
Print
Enlarge By Jack Gruber, USA TODAY
Testimony: "You are a part of this country, no matter what your religion is," Elena Kagan says.
USA TODAY OPINION
Columns
In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes a variety of opinions from outside writers. On political and policy matters, we publish opinions from across the political spectrum.
Roughly half of our columns come from our Board of Contributors, a group whose interests range from education to religion to sports to the economy. Their charge is to chronicle American culture by telling the stories, large and small, that collectively make us what we are.
We also publish weekly columns by Al Neuharth, USA TODAY's founder, and DeWayne Wickham, who writes primarily on matters of race but on other subjects as well. That leaves plenty of room for other views from across the nation by well-known and lesser-known names alike.
•Contributors Board
•How to submit a column
Share
Yahoo! Buzz Add to Mixx Facebook TwitterMore
Fark Digg Reddit MySpace StumbleUpon Propeller LinkedInSubscribe
myYahoo iGoogleMore
Netvibes myAOL
By Richard W. Garnett
To no one's surprise, Solicitor General Elena Kagan displayed intelligence and charm during the hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee on her nomination to the Supreme Court. In addition, and also as expected, she avoided with impressive discipline sharing specific answers to senators' questions about the Constitution and the judicial role.
She did, however, provide, a few clues. In her opening statement, Kagan said that the court "has the responsibility of ensuring that our government never oversteps its proper bounds or violates the rights of individuals," but "must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people." A justice, she said, must be a vigilant "trustee" of the "blessings of liberty," but also "properly deferential to the decisions of the American people and their elected representatives."
Among our most cherished "blessings of liberty" is the freedom of religion, our "first freedom." In the words of James Madison, the "father of the Constitution," America's experiment in religious liberty has brought "lustre to our country."
What, in Kagan's view, is the role of the court in this experiment? When it comes to questions of religious liberty and church-state relations, does she think a justice should show vigilance or deference?
Three cases to consider
The court decided two cases presenting such questions this past term, and a third is on the docket for next year. How would a Justice Kagan vote, or have voted, in these disputes? Justice John Paul Stevens was consistently wary, even critical, of religion's public role and influence. Are there reasons, given her Senate testimony, to hope for better from his replacement?
Consider the decision in Salazar v. Buono, which involved a retired Park Service employee's challenge to a war-memorial cross deep in the desert of the Mojave National Preserve. The case presented a variety of tricky procedural and technical questions, but at its heart was a straightforward one: Did this tribute to our fallen soldiers unconstitutionally express the government's "endorsement" of religion? Or was it instead — in Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion for the majority — a permissible "public acknowledgment of religion's role in society"?
In another recent ruling, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, a bare majority upheld a public law school's rule requiring official student groups, including religious groups, to accept "all comers" as members and leaders. Joined by Justice Kennedy, the court's liberal bloc rejected the argument that the rule undermined the legal society's ability to determine its own character and message — that is, to be distinctively Christian — and concluded that the requirement encourages "tolerance, cooperation, and learning among students" while re-enforcing California's disapproval of "discrimination."
Finally, the justices will consider next year whether Arizona's tuition-tax-credit law violates the Establishment Clause. This innovative policy provides a credit to taxpayers who contribute their own money to scholarship funds which, in turn, help children attend private and religious schools. Flying in the face of Supreme Court precedent upholding such programs, a lower federal court concluded that the Arizona program illegally "advances" religion.
What does Kagan's embrace of both judicial responsibility and restraint tell us about how she would have approached, or will approach, such cases? We know that she will, in general, be a reliably "liberal" or "progressive" voice on the court, but will she follow in Justice Stevens' footsteps when it comes to religious liberty?
As she told the Judiciary Committee, the First Amendment ensures that religion "never functions as a way to put people, because of their religious belief or because of their religious practice, at some disadvantage with respect to any of the rights of American citizenship." "You are a part of this country," she insisted, "no matter what your religion is." She was right. Our Constitution protects religious liberty and welcomes religion in public life, but the criteria for membership in our political community are secular. Clearly, courts have a role to play in policing these criteria and making sure that "rights of American citizenship" are never made to depend on religious professions or practices.
But what is that role, and how should it be exercised? The ability of unelected judges to identify those government actions that actually "establish" religion is limited, and so is their authority to second-guess others' policy decisions. It is not just the responsibility of judges, but also of legislators, public officials and voters, to be good stewards of our "blessings of liberty" and to guard against political exclusions on religious grounds.
The judicial tea leaves
So, what about the Buono case and the question of religious symbols on public property? An appropriately modest and "deferential" justice — that is, a justice of the kind that Kagan told the senators she would be — should humbly appreciate the fact that such symbols rarely have one clear meaning and do not necessarily send a message of exclusion. Yes, a cross is a religious symbol, and no one should pretend otherwise. However, reasonable people can disagree about what, in context, such a symbol is saying. Thus, Kagan — who said that courts should be inclined to "respect the choices made by the ... people" — should allow monuments like the longstanding memorial in the Mojave to stand.
In the Christian Legal Society case, by contrast, the court should not have deferred to the law-school's "all comers" rule. True, the policy might seem, at first glance, to promote the inclusive political community that Kagan endorsed. In fact, though, it excludes from the law school's common life groups with distinctive identities and penalizes the view that members' beliefs matter to the group's shared purpose. A justice committed to making sure that religion is not used to put people at a "disadvantage with respect to any of the rights of American citizenship" should have joined the court's "conservatives" and vindicated the Society's First Amendment rights.
Looking ahead to next year's tuition-tax-credit case, appropriate judicial deference to Arizona's education-reform policy is precisely the way to vindicate Kagan's understanding of the First Amendment's purpose. To exclude religious schools from the program would not only hamstring efforts to enhance educational opportunities, it would also send a clear but unseemly message that religious schools are somehow unworthy of participating in the community's shared project.
History has shown, to several presidents' regret, that Supreme Court justices do not always vote in accord with what Supreme Court nominees said. But if Kagan adheres in religious-freedom cases to her endorsement of judicial modesty combined with an appreciation for our "first freedom," it will serve her legacy — and our Constitution — well.
Richard W. Garnett is professor of law and associate dean at Notre Dame Law School.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Fired University Of Illinois Professor Vindicated, Will Again Be Allowed To Teach Catholicism Class
From The Alliance Defense Fund:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Dr. Kenneth Howell resource page
Additional media resources available at right. To book an interview, click on the "Book an Interview" button.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
News releases: 7/29/2010
7/12/2010
Fired U of I professor vindicated, will again be allowed to teach Catholicism class
U of I says Kenneth Howell will continue as adjunct professor
Thursday, July 29, 2010
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — The University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana confirmed to Alliance Defense Fund attorneys Thursday that it will once again allow popular professor Dr. Kenneth Howell to teach on Catholicism after recently firing him for explaining the Roman Catholic Church’s position on human sexual behavior to members of his class.
ADF attorneys representing Howell sent a letter to university officials on July 12 explaining that the university’s actions violated his rights protected by the First Amendment and asked that he be reinstated.
“A university cannot censor professors’ speech--including classroom speech related to the topic of the class--merely because certain ideas ‘offend’ an anonymous student. We greatly appreciate the university’s move to put Professor Howell back in the classroom, but we will be watching carefully to make sure that his academic freedom is protected throughout the university’s ongoing process,” said ADF Senior Counsel David French.
A letter from the University of Illinois Office of University Counsel admits no wrongdoing on the part of the university but states, “The School of Literatures, Cultures and Linguistics will be contacting Dr. Howell to offer him the opportunity to teach Religion 127, Introduction to Catholicism, on a visiting instructional appointment at the University of Illinois, for the fall 2010 semester. Dr. Howell will be appointed and paid by the University for this adjunct teaching assignment.”
The letter then adds that a university committee will continue its investigation of Howell’s situation.
Howell, who had been teaching at the university since 2001, was relieved of his teaching duties based in part on an anonymous complaint sent via e-mail to university officials. The e-mail was sent by the friend of an anonymous student who claimed to be “offended” by a May 4 e-mail Howell sent to students elaborating on a class discussion concerning Catholic beliefs about sexual behavior.
The May 4 e-mail from Howell addressed a May 3 lecture in which he explained how the Roman Catholic Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and homosexual conduct. He accurately stated the church’s teaching that homosexual conduct is morally wrong, framing the issue in the context of natural moral law.
••ADF University Project website
ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.
www.adfmedia.org
twitter.com/adfmedia
Ill. prof. fired for teaching about Catholic beliefs in class on Catholicism
ADF urges restoration of Kenneth Howell’s First Amendment rights, teaching position
Monday, July 12, 2010
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys sent a letter Monday to University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign officials on behalf of a popular, highly regarded professor who was fired for explaining the position of the Roman Catholic Church on human sexual behavior to members of his Introduction to Catholicism class.
“A university cannot censor professors’ speech--including classroom speech related to the topic of the class--merely because certain ideas ‘offend’ an anonymous student,” said ADF Senior Counsel David French. “To fire a professor for teaching the actual subject matter of his course is outrageous. It’s ridiculous that a school would fire a professor without even giving him a chance to defend himself when he simply taught Catholic beliefs in a class about Catholic beliefs.”
Dr. Kenneth Howell, who had been teaching at the university since 2001, was relieved of his duties based in part on an anonymous complaint sent via e-mail to university officials. The e-mail was sent by the friend of an anonymous student who claimed to be “offended” by a May 4 email Howell sent to students elaborating on a class discussion on Catholic beliefs about sexual behavior. The May 4 e-mail from Howell addressed a May 3 lecture in which he explained how the Roman Catholic Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and homosexual conduct. He properly stated the church’s teaching that homosexual conduct is morally wrong, framing the issue in the context of natural moral law.
ADF attorneys see Howell’s case as part of an ominous trend on campus. Mike Adams’ ongoing suit against officials from the University of North Carolina, Wilmington, and June Sheldon’s lawsuit against officials from San Jose City College demonstrate that professors can be punished for merely expressing their viewpoint, and now, for even teaching the very material that is the subject of a class.
“The First Amendment protects the ability of faculty to speak freely, especially when the material is of direct relevance to the class,” added French. “Professors’ careers cannot be made to stand or fall based on the emotions of intolerant, anonymous students who do not yet understand that opposing viewpoints exist within a free society.”
••ADF University Project Web site
ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.
www.adfmedia.org
twitter.com/adfmedia
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Dr. Kenneth Howell resource page
Additional media resources available at right. To book an interview, click on the "Book an Interview" button.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
News releases: 7/29/2010
7/12/2010
Fired U of I professor vindicated, will again be allowed to teach Catholicism class
U of I says Kenneth Howell will continue as adjunct professor
Thursday, July 29, 2010
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — The University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana confirmed to Alliance Defense Fund attorneys Thursday that it will once again allow popular professor Dr. Kenneth Howell to teach on Catholicism after recently firing him for explaining the Roman Catholic Church’s position on human sexual behavior to members of his class.
ADF attorneys representing Howell sent a letter to university officials on July 12 explaining that the university’s actions violated his rights protected by the First Amendment and asked that he be reinstated.
“A university cannot censor professors’ speech--including classroom speech related to the topic of the class--merely because certain ideas ‘offend’ an anonymous student. We greatly appreciate the university’s move to put Professor Howell back in the classroom, but we will be watching carefully to make sure that his academic freedom is protected throughout the university’s ongoing process,” said ADF Senior Counsel David French.
A letter from the University of Illinois Office of University Counsel admits no wrongdoing on the part of the university but states, “The School of Literatures, Cultures and Linguistics will be contacting Dr. Howell to offer him the opportunity to teach Religion 127, Introduction to Catholicism, on a visiting instructional appointment at the University of Illinois, for the fall 2010 semester. Dr. Howell will be appointed and paid by the University for this adjunct teaching assignment.”
The letter then adds that a university committee will continue its investigation of Howell’s situation.
Howell, who had been teaching at the university since 2001, was relieved of his teaching duties based in part on an anonymous complaint sent via e-mail to university officials. The e-mail was sent by the friend of an anonymous student who claimed to be “offended” by a May 4 e-mail Howell sent to students elaborating on a class discussion concerning Catholic beliefs about sexual behavior.
The May 4 e-mail from Howell addressed a May 3 lecture in which he explained how the Roman Catholic Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and homosexual conduct. He accurately stated the church’s teaching that homosexual conduct is morally wrong, framing the issue in the context of natural moral law.
••ADF University Project website
ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.
www.adfmedia.org
twitter.com/adfmedia
Ill. prof. fired for teaching about Catholic beliefs in class on Catholicism
ADF urges restoration of Kenneth Howell’s First Amendment rights, teaching position
Monday, July 12, 2010
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys sent a letter Monday to University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign officials on behalf of a popular, highly regarded professor who was fired for explaining the position of the Roman Catholic Church on human sexual behavior to members of his Introduction to Catholicism class.
“A university cannot censor professors’ speech--including classroom speech related to the topic of the class--merely because certain ideas ‘offend’ an anonymous student,” said ADF Senior Counsel David French. “To fire a professor for teaching the actual subject matter of his course is outrageous. It’s ridiculous that a school would fire a professor without even giving him a chance to defend himself when he simply taught Catholic beliefs in a class about Catholic beliefs.”
Dr. Kenneth Howell, who had been teaching at the university since 2001, was relieved of his duties based in part on an anonymous complaint sent via e-mail to university officials. The e-mail was sent by the friend of an anonymous student who claimed to be “offended” by a May 4 email Howell sent to students elaborating on a class discussion on Catholic beliefs about sexual behavior. The May 4 e-mail from Howell addressed a May 3 lecture in which he explained how the Roman Catholic Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and homosexual conduct. He properly stated the church’s teaching that homosexual conduct is morally wrong, framing the issue in the context of natural moral law.
ADF attorneys see Howell’s case as part of an ominous trend on campus. Mike Adams’ ongoing suit against officials from the University of North Carolina, Wilmington, and June Sheldon’s lawsuit against officials from San Jose City College demonstrate that professors can be punished for merely expressing their viewpoint, and now, for even teaching the very material that is the subject of a class.
“The First Amendment protects the ability of faculty to speak freely, especially when the material is of direct relevance to the class,” added French. “Professors’ careers cannot be made to stand or fall based on the emotions of intolerant, anonymous students who do not yet understand that opposing viewpoints exist within a free society.”
••ADF University Project Web site
ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.
www.adfmedia.org
twitter.com/adfmedia
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Eric Holder And Race Privilege
From The American Thinker:
July 28, 2010
Eric Holder and Race Privilege
By J.R. Dunn
The very belated legacy media reports on the Black Panther intimidation story have overlooked one critical aspect. Concentration on the antics of the two Black Panthers at the polling station -- whom careful examination shows to be officers of the New Black Panther army's specialized "Midnight Slob" unit -- has led to a failure to address the Justice Department's response. Namely, the contention by former DoJ attorney J. Christian Adams that he was ordered "not to bring any other cases against blacks and other minorities."
There is no reason to doubt Adams, who told Commentary that he's willing to testify on the matter under oath. But if true, it raises extraordinarily serious issues concerning the Obama Justice Department's dedication not to only equality under law, but just to execution of the law on any level. If Eric Holder is guilty of putting any such policy in place, then the Department of Justice is manipulating the law, is refusing to fulfill its charter, and is in a deep state of corruption.
The "hands off minorities" attitude expressed by the current Justice Department has roots going back generations. Black dissatisfaction with the legal system is nothing new. Blacks distrusted law enforcement, with good reason, during the segregation period, where it was utilized in large part to enforce the prevailing apartheid system. An overreaction to earlier abuses during the civil rights era led to lax enforcement and sentencing, allowing black criminals to run riot in black neighborhoods with minimal interference from the justice system. It is often forgotten that blacks suffered the most from this country's crime explosion of the late 20th century.
Eventually, of course, the situation was turned around (though it required a quarter-century to even start responding to the policy errors that triggered the great crime wave). Part of the solution was more prisons to hold all the bad boys being bagged by revitalized law enforcement. Demographic realities being what they were, a lot of the cons filling the new cells were black. Almost immediately, this became an "issue," with claims that the United States was imprisoning more people that the USSR under Stalin (untrue -- as much as 10% of the Soviet population went through the Gulag). White liberal commentators put considerable effort into attempts to construe the reason why crime was so low while prison populations were so high. (Fox Butterfield of The New York Times established a substantial career-within-a-career on this basis.) Among black intellectuals -- most of whom did not live in black neighborhoods -- the response was an ideological construct called Black Legal Scholarship (BLS).
The basic premise of BLS is that no universally applicable form of law exists, and that the American legal system, having evolved from British common law, is a "white" structure, racist to the core, that cannot be fairly applied to blacks. As practiced today, law is a system of "oppression," the law enforcement establishment its tool. Along with assorted minor filigrees (e.g., the contention that black scholars need not read or cite previous work since the basis of black thought is "narrative" -- that is, all you need to do is come up with a good story), that's BLS for dummies.
It's clear that, if actually put into practice, BLS would simply comprise a U-turn back to the '60s, with hoodlums ruling the streets unchallenged. While this might have appealed to upper-middle-class blacks residing in Highland Park or Berkeley, its attraction to the rest of black America was minimal.
But BLS had its adherents, even within the oppressive white-controlled legal system. One of its leading exemplars, who had practiced BLS even before it was formalized, was Judge Bruce Wright, who achieved the status of legend as "Turn 'em loose Bruce."
Wright was appointed to the New York City criminal bench in 1970 by that prince of RINOs, John Lindsay. Wright was motivated by three distinct concepts: that blacks were legally defined solely as victims of racism, that bail was consistently set too high, and that police forces were the enemies of mankind. He wasted no time in putting these contentions to the test. In 1972, he set a bail of $500 for a man accused of murdering a cop. (Some sources, perhaps seeking greater credibility, assert that it was $5,000, but that's not the case.) Two years later, he released a man accused of kidnapping and trying to murder a cop. These and similar decisions set him at sword's point with the Police Benevolent Association, which hounded him mercilessly. Ed Koch, in his role as exemplar of common sense, refused to renew his appointment, after which Wright ran for and won a seat on the civil court. This being New York state, he was eventually appointed to the State Supreme Court.
Wright appears to have been a victim of what may well come to be called BHO syndrome, a personality disorder in which certain blacks exhibit a compulsive need to demonstrate their "blackness" in the most extreme manner conceivable to offset the fact that they actually have no black American ancestry to speak of. Wright's mother was an Irish immigrant, his father an immigrant from the Caribbean island of Montserrat. (Recent events have revealed yet another sufferer: Benjamin Jealous of the NAACP.)
Wright's theory of jurisprudence was BLS in action, his attitude toward whites quite similar to that of his namesake, the renowned preacher Jeremiah Wright. Matters at last came to a head in 1994, when Wright publicly refused to hear any cases involving blacks and drugs on the grounds that these were the product of a massive conspiracy against black Americans, while encouraging other judges to do the same. He was shortly afterward hustled into retirement. (Wright, who fancied himself an intellectual, appears not to have realized that removing black judges from the equation would leave all sentencing decisions in the hands of white devils.)
Wright is held in high esteem in a number of quarters. Evidently, the Justice Department is one of them. Through Holder's "hands off minorities" rule, a fringe viewpoint once limited to academia and the occasional crank judge has now been emplaced at the very center of the American legal system.
Holder is, of course, notorious as the man who accused America as a whole of "moral cowardice" on the subject of race, and afterward hiding in the closet when the cowards roared back at him. But we can discuss race without him.
Part of the problem in dealing with racism is that the concept has, through rhetoric and ideology, been reversed over the past half-century. Most people today would define racism as prejudice against a particular ethnicity. But it is in fact a conviction that one's own race is superior and holds a privileged position in regard to others. The Southern backwoodsmen who constituted the Klan were insistent on their superiority to black Americans. The Nazis were equally sanguine concerning their position vis-à-vis the Jews (and just about everybody else, apart from some scattered ethnicities here and there). It is racism in the pure sense that Eric Holder has introduced into the Justice Department by attempting to place blacks beyond the law, a privilege denied other ethnicities.
Viewed from this angle, the relationship between Holder's policy and other forms of black racism -- that of Jeremiah Wright, the various Black Muslim cults, or the New Black Panthers -- becomes apparent. The shadow concept behind each -- and for that matter, the core doctrine of BLS -- is identical. Holder has simply made it an official policy.
Removing racial privilege goes a long way toward defanging racism. The United States has had considerable success in carrying this policy out since the 1950s. In officially reinstating racial privilege, Holder is playing a very dangerous game. Barack Obama has often boasted of his status as a post-racial president. The actions of Eric Holder, his select attorney general, give this statement the lie, and threaten to push the country right back into the discriminatory muck it began to shake off in the '60s.
Organized black racism will meet the same fate as other varieties. But it needs to be exposed. J. Christian Adams has done the country a service by doing exactly that. His efforts should not be overshadowed by the more lurid aspects of the story (or, for that matter, dismissed by Abigail Thernstrom and Linda Chavez).
Irresponsible black leadership has made life difficult for blacks in general for decades. That's the tradition that Holder is following. It is a foul, worthless tradition, a disservice to black Americans and the country as a whole. If Obama wanted to live up to his post-racial rhetoric, the best move he could make would be to publicly repudiate it through a thorough cleansing of his Justice Department. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker and editor of the forthcoming Military Thinker.
July 28, 2010
Eric Holder and Race Privilege
By J.R. Dunn
The very belated legacy media reports on the Black Panther intimidation story have overlooked one critical aspect. Concentration on the antics of the two Black Panthers at the polling station -- whom careful examination shows to be officers of the New Black Panther army's specialized "Midnight Slob" unit -- has led to a failure to address the Justice Department's response. Namely, the contention by former DoJ attorney J. Christian Adams that he was ordered "not to bring any other cases against blacks and other minorities."
There is no reason to doubt Adams, who told Commentary that he's willing to testify on the matter under oath. But if true, it raises extraordinarily serious issues concerning the Obama Justice Department's dedication not to only equality under law, but just to execution of the law on any level. If Eric Holder is guilty of putting any such policy in place, then the Department of Justice is manipulating the law, is refusing to fulfill its charter, and is in a deep state of corruption.
The "hands off minorities" attitude expressed by the current Justice Department has roots going back generations. Black dissatisfaction with the legal system is nothing new. Blacks distrusted law enforcement, with good reason, during the segregation period, where it was utilized in large part to enforce the prevailing apartheid system. An overreaction to earlier abuses during the civil rights era led to lax enforcement and sentencing, allowing black criminals to run riot in black neighborhoods with minimal interference from the justice system. It is often forgotten that blacks suffered the most from this country's crime explosion of the late 20th century.
Eventually, of course, the situation was turned around (though it required a quarter-century to even start responding to the policy errors that triggered the great crime wave). Part of the solution was more prisons to hold all the bad boys being bagged by revitalized law enforcement. Demographic realities being what they were, a lot of the cons filling the new cells were black. Almost immediately, this became an "issue," with claims that the United States was imprisoning more people that the USSR under Stalin (untrue -- as much as 10% of the Soviet population went through the Gulag). White liberal commentators put considerable effort into attempts to construe the reason why crime was so low while prison populations were so high. (Fox Butterfield of The New York Times established a substantial career-within-a-career on this basis.) Among black intellectuals -- most of whom did not live in black neighborhoods -- the response was an ideological construct called Black Legal Scholarship (BLS).
The basic premise of BLS is that no universally applicable form of law exists, and that the American legal system, having evolved from British common law, is a "white" structure, racist to the core, that cannot be fairly applied to blacks. As practiced today, law is a system of "oppression," the law enforcement establishment its tool. Along with assorted minor filigrees (e.g., the contention that black scholars need not read or cite previous work since the basis of black thought is "narrative" -- that is, all you need to do is come up with a good story), that's BLS for dummies.
It's clear that, if actually put into practice, BLS would simply comprise a U-turn back to the '60s, with hoodlums ruling the streets unchallenged. While this might have appealed to upper-middle-class blacks residing in Highland Park or Berkeley, its attraction to the rest of black America was minimal.
But BLS had its adherents, even within the oppressive white-controlled legal system. One of its leading exemplars, who had practiced BLS even before it was formalized, was Judge Bruce Wright, who achieved the status of legend as "Turn 'em loose Bruce."
Wright was appointed to the New York City criminal bench in 1970 by that prince of RINOs, John Lindsay. Wright was motivated by three distinct concepts: that blacks were legally defined solely as victims of racism, that bail was consistently set too high, and that police forces were the enemies of mankind. He wasted no time in putting these contentions to the test. In 1972, he set a bail of $500 for a man accused of murdering a cop. (Some sources, perhaps seeking greater credibility, assert that it was $5,000, but that's not the case.) Two years later, he released a man accused of kidnapping and trying to murder a cop. These and similar decisions set him at sword's point with the Police Benevolent Association, which hounded him mercilessly. Ed Koch, in his role as exemplar of common sense, refused to renew his appointment, after which Wright ran for and won a seat on the civil court. This being New York state, he was eventually appointed to the State Supreme Court.
Wright appears to have been a victim of what may well come to be called BHO syndrome, a personality disorder in which certain blacks exhibit a compulsive need to demonstrate their "blackness" in the most extreme manner conceivable to offset the fact that they actually have no black American ancestry to speak of. Wright's mother was an Irish immigrant, his father an immigrant from the Caribbean island of Montserrat. (Recent events have revealed yet another sufferer: Benjamin Jealous of the NAACP.)
Wright's theory of jurisprudence was BLS in action, his attitude toward whites quite similar to that of his namesake, the renowned preacher Jeremiah Wright. Matters at last came to a head in 1994, when Wright publicly refused to hear any cases involving blacks and drugs on the grounds that these were the product of a massive conspiracy against black Americans, while encouraging other judges to do the same. He was shortly afterward hustled into retirement. (Wright, who fancied himself an intellectual, appears not to have realized that removing black judges from the equation would leave all sentencing decisions in the hands of white devils.)
Wright is held in high esteem in a number of quarters. Evidently, the Justice Department is one of them. Through Holder's "hands off minorities" rule, a fringe viewpoint once limited to academia and the occasional crank judge has now been emplaced at the very center of the American legal system.
Holder is, of course, notorious as the man who accused America as a whole of "moral cowardice" on the subject of race, and afterward hiding in the closet when the cowards roared back at him. But we can discuss race without him.
Part of the problem in dealing with racism is that the concept has, through rhetoric and ideology, been reversed over the past half-century. Most people today would define racism as prejudice against a particular ethnicity. But it is in fact a conviction that one's own race is superior and holds a privileged position in regard to others. The Southern backwoodsmen who constituted the Klan were insistent on their superiority to black Americans. The Nazis were equally sanguine concerning their position vis-à-vis the Jews (and just about everybody else, apart from some scattered ethnicities here and there). It is racism in the pure sense that Eric Holder has introduced into the Justice Department by attempting to place blacks beyond the law, a privilege denied other ethnicities.
Viewed from this angle, the relationship between Holder's policy and other forms of black racism -- that of Jeremiah Wright, the various Black Muslim cults, or the New Black Panthers -- becomes apparent. The shadow concept behind each -- and for that matter, the core doctrine of BLS -- is identical. Holder has simply made it an official policy.
Removing racial privilege goes a long way toward defanging racism. The United States has had considerable success in carrying this policy out since the 1950s. In officially reinstating racial privilege, Holder is playing a very dangerous game. Barack Obama has often boasted of his status as a post-racial president. The actions of Eric Holder, his select attorney general, give this statement the lie, and threaten to push the country right back into the discriminatory muck it began to shake off in the '60s.
Organized black racism will meet the same fate as other varieties. But it needs to be exposed. J. Christian Adams has done the country a service by doing exactly that. His efforts should not be overshadowed by the more lurid aspects of the story (or, for that matter, dismissed by Abigail Thernstrom and Linda Chavez).
Irresponsible black leadership has made life difficult for blacks in general for decades. That's the tradition that Holder is following. It is a foul, worthless tradition, a disservice to black Americans and the country as a whole. If Obama wanted to live up to his post-racial rhetoric, the best move he could make would be to publicly repudiate it through a thorough cleansing of his Justice Department. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker and editor of the forthcoming Military Thinker.
No Mosque At Ground Zero
From Newt Gingrich:
July 28, 2010 · Vol. 5, No.30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Mosque at Ground Zero
One of our biggest mistakes in the aftermath of 9/11 was naming our response to the attacks "the war on terror" instead of accurately identifying radical Islamists (and the underlying ideology of radical Islamism) as the target of our campaign. This mistake has led to endless confusion about the nature of the ideological and material threat facing the civilized world and the scale of the response that is appropriate.
Radical Islamism is more than simply a religious belief. It is a comprehensive political, economic, and religious movement that seeks to impose sharia--Islamic law--upon all aspects of global society.
Many Muslims see sharia as simply a reference point for their personal code of conduct. They recognize the distinction between their personal beliefs and the laws that govern all people of all faiths.
Get 3 books for $3
Conservative Book Club authors -- people like Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, Mark Levin, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich and Laura Ingraham -- fearlessly expose and brilliantly refute the spin, distortions, and outright lies that liberals engage in day in, day out.
Check out our selction of conservative books now.
For the radical Islamist, however, this distinction does not exist. Radical Islamists see politics and religion as inseparable in a way it is difficult for Americans to understand. Radical Islamists assert sharia's supremacy over the freely legislated laws and values of the countries they live in and see it as their sacred duty to achieve this totalitarian supremacy in practice.
Some radical Islamists use terrorism as a tactic to impose sharia but others use non-violent methods--a cultural, political, and legal jihad that seeks the same totalitarian goal even while claiming to repudiate violence. Thus, the term "war on terrorism" is far too narrow a framework in which to think about the war in which we are engaged against the radical Islamists.
Sharia and Western Civilization
Sharia law is used in many Muslim countries to justify shocking acts of barbarity including stoning, the execution of homosexuals, and the subjugation of women. Sharia does not permit freedom of conscience; it prohibits Muslims from renouncing their Islamic faith or converting to another religion. Sharia does not support religious liberty; it treats non-Muslims as inferior and does not accord them the same protections as Muslims. In these and other instances, sharia is explicitly at odds with core American and Western values. It is an explicit repudiation of freedom of conscience and religious liberty as well as the premise that citizens are equal under the law.
Thus, the radical Islamist effort to impose sharia worldwide is a direct threat to all those who believe in the freedoms maintained by our constitutional system.
Creeping Sharia in the United States
In some ways, it speaks of the goodness of America that we have had such difficulty coming to grips with the challenge of radical Islamists. It is our very commitment to religious liberty that makes us uncomfortable with defining our enemies in a way that appears linked with religious belief.
However, America's commitment to religious liberty has given radical Islamists a potent rhetorical weapon in their pursuit of sharia supremacy. In a deliberately dishonest campaign exploiting our belief in religious liberty, radical Islamists are actively engaged in a public relations campaign to try and browbeat and guilt Americans (and other Western countries) to accept the imposition of sharia in certain communities, no matter how deeply sharia law is in conflict with the protections afforded by the civil law and the democratic values undergirding our constitutional system.
The problem of creeping sharia is most visibly on display in France and in the United Kingdom, where there are Muslim enclaves in which the police have surrendered authority and sharia reigns. However, worrisome cases are starting to emerge in the United States that show sharia is coming here. Andy McCarthy's writings, including his new book The Grand Jihad, have been invaluable in tracking instances in which the American government and major public institutions have been unwilling to assert the protections of American law and American values over sharia's religious code. Some examples include:
In June 2009, a New Jersey state judge rejected an allegation that a Muslim man who punished his wife with pain for hours and then raped her repeatedly was guilty of criminal sexual assault, citing his religious beliefs as proof that he did not believe he was acting in a criminal matter. "This court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited." Thankfully, this ruling was reversed in an appellate court.
In May 2008, a disabled student at a public college being assisted by a dog was threatened by Muslim members of the student body, who were reluctant to touch the animal by the prescription of sharia. The school, St. Cloud State, chose not to engage the Muslim community, but simply gave the student credit without actually fulfilling the class hours so as to avoid conflict.
In a similar instance in November 2009, a high school senior in Owatonna, Minn., was suspended in order to protect him from the threat of violence by radical Islamists when he wrote an essay about the special privileges afforded his Somali Muslim counterparts in the school environment.
In order to accommodate sharia's prohibition of interest payments in financial transactions, the state of Minnesota buys homes from realtors and re-sells them to Muslims at an up-front price. It is simply not the function of government to use tax money to create financial transactions that correspond to a religious code. Moreover, it is a strategy to create a precedent for legal recognition of sharia within U.S. law.
Amazingly, there are strong allegations that the United States now owns the largest provider of sharia financing in the world: AIG.
Last month, police in Dearborn, Mich., which has a large Muslim population, arrested Christian missionaries for handing out copies of the Gospel of St. John on charges of "disturbing the peace." They were doing so on a public street outside an Arab festival in a way that is completely permissible by law, but, of course, forbidden by sharia's rules on proselytizing. This is a clear case of freedom of speech and the exercise of religious freedom being sacrificed in deference to sharia's intolerance against the preaching of religions other than Islam.
Shockingly, sharia honor killings-in which Muslim women are murdered by their husbands, brothers or other male family members for dishonoring their family-are also on the rise in America but do not receive national attention because they are considered "domestic disturbances." (A recent article in Marie Claire Magazine highlights recent cases and the efforts to bring national attention to this horrifying trend.)
Cases like this will become all the more common as radical Islamists grow more and more aggressive in the United States.
It is in this context that the controversy over the proposed mosque near Ground Zero must be seen.
Exposing Radical Islamist Hypocrisy at Ground Zero
There are many reasons to doubt the stated intentions of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the Ground Zero mosque. After 9/11 he did not hesitate to condemn the United States as an "accessory" to the attacks but more recently refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization. This is unsurprising considering he has well-established ties to U.S. branches of the Muslim Brotherhood. He has also refused to reveal the sources of funding for the mosque project, which is projected to cost $100 million.
More importantly, he is an apologist for sharia supremacy. In a recent op-ed, Rauf actually compared sharia law with the Declaration of Independence. This isn't mere dishonesty; it is an Orwellian attempt to cause moral confusion about the nature of radical Islamism.
The true intentions of Rauf are also revealed by the name initially proposed for the Ground Zero mosque--"Cordoba House"--which is named for a city in Spain where a conquering Muslim army replaced a church with a mosque. This name is a very direct historical indication that the Ground Zero mosque is all about conquest and thus an assertion of Islamist triumphalism which we should not tolerate.
They say they're interfaith, but they didn't propose the building of a mosque, church and synagogue. Instead they proposed a 13-story mosque and community center that will extol the glories of Islamic tolerance for people of other faiths, all while overlooking the site where radical Islamists killed almost 3,000 people in a shocking act of hatred.
Building this structure on the edge of the battlefield created by radical Islamists is not a celebration of religious pluralism and mutual tolerance; it is a political statement of shocking arrogance and hypocrisy.
We need to have the moral courage to denounce it. It is simply grotesque to erect a mosque at the site of the most visible and powerful symbol of the horrible consequences of radical Islamist ideology. Well-meaning Muslims, with common human sensitivity to the victims' families, realize they have plenty of other places to gather and worship. But for radical Islamists, the mosque would become an icon of triumph, encouraging them in their challenge to our civilization.
Apologists for radical Islamist hypocrisy are trying to argue that we have to allow the construction of this mosque in order to prove America's commitment to religious liberty. They say this despite the fact that there are already over 100 mosques in New York City.
In fact, they're partially correct-this is a test of our commitment to religious liberty. It is a test to see if we have the resolve to face down an ideology that aims to destroy religious liberty in America, and every other freedom we hold dear.
July 28, 2010 · Vol. 5, No.30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Mosque at Ground Zero
One of our biggest mistakes in the aftermath of 9/11 was naming our response to the attacks "the war on terror" instead of accurately identifying radical Islamists (and the underlying ideology of radical Islamism) as the target of our campaign. This mistake has led to endless confusion about the nature of the ideological and material threat facing the civilized world and the scale of the response that is appropriate.
Radical Islamism is more than simply a religious belief. It is a comprehensive political, economic, and religious movement that seeks to impose sharia--Islamic law--upon all aspects of global society.
Many Muslims see sharia as simply a reference point for their personal code of conduct. They recognize the distinction between their personal beliefs and the laws that govern all people of all faiths.
Get 3 books for $3
Conservative Book Club authors -- people like Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, Mark Levin, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich and Laura Ingraham -- fearlessly expose and brilliantly refute the spin, distortions, and outright lies that liberals engage in day in, day out.
Check out our selction of conservative books now.
For the radical Islamist, however, this distinction does not exist. Radical Islamists see politics and religion as inseparable in a way it is difficult for Americans to understand. Radical Islamists assert sharia's supremacy over the freely legislated laws and values of the countries they live in and see it as their sacred duty to achieve this totalitarian supremacy in practice.
Some radical Islamists use terrorism as a tactic to impose sharia but others use non-violent methods--a cultural, political, and legal jihad that seeks the same totalitarian goal even while claiming to repudiate violence. Thus, the term "war on terrorism" is far too narrow a framework in which to think about the war in which we are engaged against the radical Islamists.
Sharia and Western Civilization
Sharia law is used in many Muslim countries to justify shocking acts of barbarity including stoning, the execution of homosexuals, and the subjugation of women. Sharia does not permit freedom of conscience; it prohibits Muslims from renouncing their Islamic faith or converting to another religion. Sharia does not support religious liberty; it treats non-Muslims as inferior and does not accord them the same protections as Muslims. In these and other instances, sharia is explicitly at odds with core American and Western values. It is an explicit repudiation of freedom of conscience and religious liberty as well as the premise that citizens are equal under the law.
Thus, the radical Islamist effort to impose sharia worldwide is a direct threat to all those who believe in the freedoms maintained by our constitutional system.
Creeping Sharia in the United States
In some ways, it speaks of the goodness of America that we have had such difficulty coming to grips with the challenge of radical Islamists. It is our very commitment to religious liberty that makes us uncomfortable with defining our enemies in a way that appears linked with religious belief.
However, America's commitment to religious liberty has given radical Islamists a potent rhetorical weapon in their pursuit of sharia supremacy. In a deliberately dishonest campaign exploiting our belief in religious liberty, radical Islamists are actively engaged in a public relations campaign to try and browbeat and guilt Americans (and other Western countries) to accept the imposition of sharia in certain communities, no matter how deeply sharia law is in conflict with the protections afforded by the civil law and the democratic values undergirding our constitutional system.
The problem of creeping sharia is most visibly on display in France and in the United Kingdom, where there are Muslim enclaves in which the police have surrendered authority and sharia reigns. However, worrisome cases are starting to emerge in the United States that show sharia is coming here. Andy McCarthy's writings, including his new book The Grand Jihad, have been invaluable in tracking instances in which the American government and major public institutions have been unwilling to assert the protections of American law and American values over sharia's religious code. Some examples include:
In June 2009, a New Jersey state judge rejected an allegation that a Muslim man who punished his wife with pain for hours and then raped her repeatedly was guilty of criminal sexual assault, citing his religious beliefs as proof that he did not believe he was acting in a criminal matter. "This court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited." Thankfully, this ruling was reversed in an appellate court.
In May 2008, a disabled student at a public college being assisted by a dog was threatened by Muslim members of the student body, who were reluctant to touch the animal by the prescription of sharia. The school, St. Cloud State, chose not to engage the Muslim community, but simply gave the student credit without actually fulfilling the class hours so as to avoid conflict.
In a similar instance in November 2009, a high school senior in Owatonna, Minn., was suspended in order to protect him from the threat of violence by radical Islamists when he wrote an essay about the special privileges afforded his Somali Muslim counterparts in the school environment.
In order to accommodate sharia's prohibition of interest payments in financial transactions, the state of Minnesota buys homes from realtors and re-sells them to Muslims at an up-front price. It is simply not the function of government to use tax money to create financial transactions that correspond to a religious code. Moreover, it is a strategy to create a precedent for legal recognition of sharia within U.S. law.
Amazingly, there are strong allegations that the United States now owns the largest provider of sharia financing in the world: AIG.
Last month, police in Dearborn, Mich., which has a large Muslim population, arrested Christian missionaries for handing out copies of the Gospel of St. John on charges of "disturbing the peace." They were doing so on a public street outside an Arab festival in a way that is completely permissible by law, but, of course, forbidden by sharia's rules on proselytizing. This is a clear case of freedom of speech and the exercise of religious freedom being sacrificed in deference to sharia's intolerance against the preaching of religions other than Islam.
Shockingly, sharia honor killings-in which Muslim women are murdered by their husbands, brothers or other male family members for dishonoring their family-are also on the rise in America but do not receive national attention because they are considered "domestic disturbances." (A recent article in Marie Claire Magazine highlights recent cases and the efforts to bring national attention to this horrifying trend.)
Cases like this will become all the more common as radical Islamists grow more and more aggressive in the United States.
It is in this context that the controversy over the proposed mosque near Ground Zero must be seen.
Exposing Radical Islamist Hypocrisy at Ground Zero
There are many reasons to doubt the stated intentions of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the Ground Zero mosque. After 9/11 he did not hesitate to condemn the United States as an "accessory" to the attacks but more recently refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization. This is unsurprising considering he has well-established ties to U.S. branches of the Muslim Brotherhood. He has also refused to reveal the sources of funding for the mosque project, which is projected to cost $100 million.
More importantly, he is an apologist for sharia supremacy. In a recent op-ed, Rauf actually compared sharia law with the Declaration of Independence. This isn't mere dishonesty; it is an Orwellian attempt to cause moral confusion about the nature of radical Islamism.
The true intentions of Rauf are also revealed by the name initially proposed for the Ground Zero mosque--"Cordoba House"--which is named for a city in Spain where a conquering Muslim army replaced a church with a mosque. This name is a very direct historical indication that the Ground Zero mosque is all about conquest and thus an assertion of Islamist triumphalism which we should not tolerate.
They say they're interfaith, but they didn't propose the building of a mosque, church and synagogue. Instead they proposed a 13-story mosque and community center that will extol the glories of Islamic tolerance for people of other faiths, all while overlooking the site where radical Islamists killed almost 3,000 people in a shocking act of hatred.
Building this structure on the edge of the battlefield created by radical Islamists is not a celebration of religious pluralism and mutual tolerance; it is a political statement of shocking arrogance and hypocrisy.
We need to have the moral courage to denounce it. It is simply grotesque to erect a mosque at the site of the most visible and powerful symbol of the horrible consequences of radical Islamist ideology. Well-meaning Muslims, with common human sensitivity to the victims' families, realize they have plenty of other places to gather and worship. But for radical Islamists, the mosque would become an icon of triumph, encouraging them in their challenge to our civilization.
Apologists for radical Islamist hypocrisy are trying to argue that we have to allow the construction of this mosque in order to prove America's commitment to religious liberty. They say this despite the fact that there are already over 100 mosques in New York City.
In fact, they're partially correct-this is a test of our commitment to religious liberty. It is a test to see if we have the resolve to face down an ideology that aims to destroy religious liberty in America, and every other freedom we hold dear.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
MS-13 Gang Member Gets Death Sentence
From Rebellion:
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
MS-13 gang member gets death sentence
This should keep the leftist agitators agitated for some time. There's something here for all of them -- whether they're opposed to the death penalty, in favor of floodtide immigration, or are looking for an opportunity to teach dumb gringos about misunderstood Latino cultural norms:
Alejandro Umana, an MS-13 gang member, was sentenced to death Tuesday for the December 2007 murders of two brothers.
Umana, 25, had been found guilty in April by a federal jury of killing the brothers in a restaurant in Greensboro. He also had been found guilty of conspiring to extort money from Charlotte drug dealers to increase MS-13's revenues, and of intimidating witnesses to prevent them from cooperating with authorities investigating the murders.
Prosecutors said Umana killed the two men to maintain MS-13's reputation and to advance his position in the gang's criminal enterprise.
As Umana entered the courtroom, his legs shackled and hands cuffed, he smiled. Then, turning to the audience, he said, "Hola!"
According to the Greensboro Daily News, Umana killed the brothers because they "disrespected" his MS-13 symbols. That's a Salvadorian thing -- you wouldn't understand
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
MS-13 gang member gets death sentence
This should keep the leftist agitators agitated for some time. There's something here for all of them -- whether they're opposed to the death penalty, in favor of floodtide immigration, or are looking for an opportunity to teach dumb gringos about misunderstood Latino cultural norms:
Alejandro Umana, an MS-13 gang member, was sentenced to death Tuesday for the December 2007 murders of two brothers.
Umana, 25, had been found guilty in April by a federal jury of killing the brothers in a restaurant in Greensboro. He also had been found guilty of conspiring to extort money from Charlotte drug dealers to increase MS-13's revenues, and of intimidating witnesses to prevent them from cooperating with authorities investigating the murders.
Prosecutors said Umana killed the two men to maintain MS-13's reputation and to advance his position in the gang's criminal enterprise.
As Umana entered the courtroom, his legs shackled and hands cuffed, he smiled. Then, turning to the audience, he said, "Hola!"
According to the Greensboro Daily News, Umana killed the brothers because they "disrespected" his MS-13 symbols. That's a Salvadorian thing -- you wouldn't understand
Raymond Ibrahim: Islamic Liberalization Or Insincere Conformity?
From Jihad Watch:
Raymond Ibrahim: Islamic "liberalization," or insincere conformity?
The Islamic cleric whom John Esposito has praised as a "reformist" shows his non-reformist bent yet again. "Top Muslim Cleric Qaradawi Urges Western Muslims to 'Liberalize': Outwardly, Anyway," by Raymond Ibrahim at Pajamas Media (via Raymond's site), July 23:
A recent episode of the popular Arabic show al-Sharia wa al-Haya (Law and Life), which airs weekly on Al Jazeera and features renowned Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, addressed the important yet little known Muslim concept of taysir (pronounced "tey-seer").
Qaradawi, who is touted by the likes of John Esposito and CAIR as a "moderate" -- even as he legitimizes suicide attacks against Israel (including by women) and death for apostates -- explained that, according to fiqh al-taysir (the "jurisprudence of ease"), Islam (not unlike Catholicism) offers Muslims dispensations, whenever needed: "For Allah desires ease for you, not hardship" (Koran 2:185; see also 5:6, 4:26-28, 2:286). For instance, Muslims traveling during the month of Ramadan or engaged in jihad need not observe the obligatory fast.
Qaradawi stressed that no one advocated taking the "easy way" as much as Muhammad himself. He offered several examples, including how Muhammad would be angry with prayer leaders who tired the people with long prayers. (Other less flattering though applicable anecdotes concerning Muhammad's "leniency" come to mind, such as when his followers thought they had to practice coitus interruptus while raping their captive women so as not to impregnate them, only to be told by the prophet that "There is no harm if you do not practice it, for it [the birth of the child] is something ordained [by Allah]").
Lest it be abused, Qaradawi warned that taysir should only be used as needed, based on the vicissitudes of time and chance. In other words, Muslims should not actively seek the easy way, but rather, when uncontrollable circumstances create hardships, Muslims are free to opt for the easy way -- as long as they recognize that the "hard way" (i.e., total implementation of Sharia) is the ideal way.
Qaradawi proudly contrasted taysir with the practices of Jews and Christians who "took things to the extreme, and thus were treated extremely." After quoting the verse, "Ask not about matters which, if made known to you, may make things difficult for you" (Koran 5:105), Qaradawi said Allah made things difficult for the "anal" Jews because they always insisted on receiving specific details for his otherwise simple commandments. As for Christians, Qaradawi, in dismay, pointed to monks and anchorites, who, by shunning all female contact, and living in absolute solitude and austerity, also went to the extreme.
The most significant point of the program came when Qaradawi said that taysir is especially needed in "this era" and "especially for those Muslim minorities living in Europe and America."
Now, why is that? For starters, by migrating to the West of their own free will, Muslims themselves -- not "uncontrollable circumstances" -- create this apparent need for taysir. Moreover, Western religious freedom allows Muslims to uphold Islam's fundamental Five Pillars: Muslims can proclaim the shahada (profession of faith), pray, fast, give zakat (except to terrorists), and go on the hajj. So what, exactly, is Sheikh Qaradawi referring to that makes living in the West especially hard on Muslims?
The answer is obvious: Qaradawi is referring to those other aspects of Sharia law -- you know, subjugation of non-Muslim infidels, absolute authority over women, jihad, draconian punishments, and all the rest --that do create "hardships" for Muslims who try to implement them in the West, for instance, by getting them arrested and imprisoned.
In other words, far from "liberalizing" Muslim life, taysir allows only for insincere conformity. As Qaradawi made clear, to practice taysir is not to renounce Sharia's otherwise harsh obligations; it is to put them on hold till circumstances are more accommodating....
Read it all.
Posted by Robert on July 26, 2010 2:51 PM
Raymond Ibrahim: Islamic "liberalization," or insincere conformity?
The Islamic cleric whom John Esposito has praised as a "reformist" shows his non-reformist bent yet again. "Top Muslim Cleric Qaradawi Urges Western Muslims to 'Liberalize': Outwardly, Anyway," by Raymond Ibrahim at Pajamas Media (via Raymond's site), July 23:
A recent episode of the popular Arabic show al-Sharia wa al-Haya (Law and Life), which airs weekly on Al Jazeera and features renowned Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, addressed the important yet little known Muslim concept of taysir (pronounced "tey-seer").
Qaradawi, who is touted by the likes of John Esposito and CAIR as a "moderate" -- even as he legitimizes suicide attacks against Israel (including by women) and death for apostates -- explained that, according to fiqh al-taysir (the "jurisprudence of ease"), Islam (not unlike Catholicism) offers Muslims dispensations, whenever needed: "For Allah desires ease for you, not hardship" (Koran 2:185; see also 5:6, 4:26-28, 2:286). For instance, Muslims traveling during the month of Ramadan or engaged in jihad need not observe the obligatory fast.
Qaradawi stressed that no one advocated taking the "easy way" as much as Muhammad himself. He offered several examples, including how Muhammad would be angry with prayer leaders who tired the people with long prayers. (Other less flattering though applicable anecdotes concerning Muhammad's "leniency" come to mind, such as when his followers thought they had to practice coitus interruptus while raping their captive women so as not to impregnate them, only to be told by the prophet that "There is no harm if you do not practice it, for it [the birth of the child] is something ordained [by Allah]").
Lest it be abused, Qaradawi warned that taysir should only be used as needed, based on the vicissitudes of time and chance. In other words, Muslims should not actively seek the easy way, but rather, when uncontrollable circumstances create hardships, Muslims are free to opt for the easy way -- as long as they recognize that the "hard way" (i.e., total implementation of Sharia) is the ideal way.
Qaradawi proudly contrasted taysir with the practices of Jews and Christians who "took things to the extreme, and thus were treated extremely." After quoting the verse, "Ask not about matters which, if made known to you, may make things difficult for you" (Koran 5:105), Qaradawi said Allah made things difficult for the "anal" Jews because they always insisted on receiving specific details for his otherwise simple commandments. As for Christians, Qaradawi, in dismay, pointed to monks and anchorites, who, by shunning all female contact, and living in absolute solitude and austerity, also went to the extreme.
The most significant point of the program came when Qaradawi said that taysir is especially needed in "this era" and "especially for those Muslim minorities living in Europe and America."
Now, why is that? For starters, by migrating to the West of their own free will, Muslims themselves -- not "uncontrollable circumstances" -- create this apparent need for taysir. Moreover, Western religious freedom allows Muslims to uphold Islam's fundamental Five Pillars: Muslims can proclaim the shahada (profession of faith), pray, fast, give zakat (except to terrorists), and go on the hajj. So what, exactly, is Sheikh Qaradawi referring to that makes living in the West especially hard on Muslims?
The answer is obvious: Qaradawi is referring to those other aspects of Sharia law -- you know, subjugation of non-Muslim infidels, absolute authority over women, jihad, draconian punishments, and all the rest --that do create "hardships" for Muslims who try to implement them in the West, for instance, by getting them arrested and imprisoned.
In other words, far from "liberalizing" Muslim life, taysir allows only for insincere conformity. As Qaradawi made clear, to practice taysir is not to renounce Sharia's otherwise harsh obligations; it is to put them on hold till circumstances are more accommodating....
Read it all.
Posted by Robert on July 26, 2010 2:51 PM
Why Is Everything To Do With Islam In The U.S. Treated With Such Kid Gloves?
From Jihad Watch:
"There seem to be so many situations in which anything to do with Islam is treated with kid gloves by politicians and the politically correct in fear of offending its members"
Ramdas Lamb was a "Hindu monk in India from 1969-1978." He is now a professor at the University of Hawai'i. He engages here in a bit of moral equivalence that fails to take into account the huge difference in content between the Christian and Islamic Scriptures, but otherwise makes many sound points.
"Islam needs more tolerance, not more mosques," from the Washington Post's On Faith blog, July 26:
One has to wonder how long the U.S. will continue to tip toe around its relationship with Islam and Muslims. There seems to be so many situations in which anything to do with Islam is treated with kid gloves by politicians and the politically correct in fear of offending its members. If it had been Jewish terrorists who had attacked the twin Towers, would the building of a synagogue at the site even be in anyone's fantasy? I strongly doubt it. Yet, when Muslims are involved in terrorism, so many of our politicians want to pretend Islam had nothing to do with it. They need to wake up and listen to what the terrorists and their hate filled [followers] are saying. [...]
Religious tolerance in the U.S. has increased a great deal over the decades, but as long as Islam continues to be treated differently than other religions, and fundamentalists are given a pass, most Americans will want to have little or nothing to do with the religion or its members. There are those who say that we are the ones at fault, we need to better understand Muslims and Islam, and the planned center and mosque near Ground Zero will help in that process. Actually, our politicians need to stop making excuses for the violence fundamentalist Islam supports, and its perpetrators need to start making room for the rest of the world in their currently narrow and hate filled version of reality. Those who say Americans need to better understand Islam need to rethink the problem. They should direct their efforts instead to attempting to teach fundamentalist Muslims the concept of tolerance of others first, since they are the source of the problem. That would be the best way to begin to inspire non-Muslims in the U.S. and the rest of the world to change their view of the tradition and to see beyond its violence for the good it can hopefully offer the rest of the world.
Posted by Robert on July 26, 2010 3:47 PM
"There seem to be so many situations in which anything to do with Islam is treated with kid gloves by politicians and the politically correct in fear of offending its members"
Ramdas Lamb was a "Hindu monk in India from 1969-1978." He is now a professor at the University of Hawai'i. He engages here in a bit of moral equivalence that fails to take into account the huge difference in content between the Christian and Islamic Scriptures, but otherwise makes many sound points.
"Islam needs more tolerance, not more mosques," from the Washington Post's On Faith blog, July 26:
One has to wonder how long the U.S. will continue to tip toe around its relationship with Islam and Muslims. There seems to be so many situations in which anything to do with Islam is treated with kid gloves by politicians and the politically correct in fear of offending its members. If it had been Jewish terrorists who had attacked the twin Towers, would the building of a synagogue at the site even be in anyone's fantasy? I strongly doubt it. Yet, when Muslims are involved in terrorism, so many of our politicians want to pretend Islam had nothing to do with it. They need to wake up and listen to what the terrorists and their hate filled [followers] are saying. [...]
Religious tolerance in the U.S. has increased a great deal over the decades, but as long as Islam continues to be treated differently than other religions, and fundamentalists are given a pass, most Americans will want to have little or nothing to do with the religion or its members. There are those who say that we are the ones at fault, we need to better understand Muslims and Islam, and the planned center and mosque near Ground Zero will help in that process. Actually, our politicians need to stop making excuses for the violence fundamentalist Islam supports, and its perpetrators need to start making room for the rest of the world in their currently narrow and hate filled version of reality. Those who say Americans need to better understand Islam need to rethink the problem. They should direct their efforts instead to attempting to teach fundamentalist Muslims the concept of tolerance of others first, since they are the source of the problem. That would be the best way to begin to inspire non-Muslims in the U.S. and the rest of the world to change their view of the tradition and to see beyond its violence for the good it can hopefully offer the rest of the world.
Posted by Robert on July 26, 2010 3:47 PM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)