With all due respect to Maria, I am currently wondering: How do you solve a problem like Kansas? The first step appears to be to invent one.
Last week, the Kansas Legislature (by a 33-3 vote in the Senate and a 120-0 vote in the House) passed a ban restricting state courts, tribunals and administrative agencies from using foreign law or legal systems that are incompatible with the state or U.S. Constitution in any of their decisions or rulings. Legislators and citizens on both sides of the issue agree that the true motivation behind the law was to prevent sharia law -- a broad set of legal codes within the Islamic legal tradition -- from being used in Kansas courtrooms.
Obviously, Kansas lawmakers must be responding to actual cases or incidents in which judges blatantly disregarded the Constitution and instituted sharia.
However, in another instance of agreement on both sides, every one admits that, well, no, in fact, sharia has never been instituted, or even threatened to be instituted, by any court, clerk's office, revenue service, fish and wildlife bureau, or DMV office in the Sunflower State.
What then is the point of passing such a law? As Ibrahim Hooper, spokesmen for the Council for American-Islamic Relations, succinctly put it: "all it does is increase hostility toward Islam and suspicion of Muslims."
Now, I've poked fun at some of the legislators, but I do take them seriously in their intent to express anti-Islamic sentiment. As Senator Chris Steineger, a Republican from Kansas City, explained, the supporters of the bill sent around material to legislators "explain[ing] why sharia law is coming and Muslims are trying to take over America." With this bill, officials truly seem motivated by the wish to create fear about Muslim Americans. I believe the Kansas legislators should have used empathy instead of fear as the basis for their policy decisions.
Indeed, in a democracy, empathy should be a basic aspect of the public decision-making process. When I refer to empathy, I mean the ability to recognize and acknowledge the values of others. Empathy's requirements demand an attempt to understand your fellow woman or man. It does not require agreement, or enjoyment, or even liking another person. But it does require the use of our imaginative skills to see others as the valuable human beings they are and to extend beyond our own experiences in respect toward others.
I assume many of the legislators who voted for this bill were committed Christians with a deep reverence for Jesus Christ as their Savior. Their faith is undoubtedly central to their thoughts, values and actions. Gove. Sam Brownback has been one of the more open public figures in discussing the vital role his faith plays in his personal life, career and philosophy. Why then, would these same people pass a bill targeting another group of Kansans solely for their faith? The value of faith, like the value of equal voting rights or freedom of speech, is an enshrined value in our Constitution. Ignoring that value for others, while seemingly reserving it for yourself, displays a notable lack of empathy.
And, indeed, members of the Kansas state legislature are not the only people in our pluralistic democracy who ignore empathetic considerations. Many of my liberal and progressive friends are quick to call someone who disagrees with them with any type of faith-based justification a "fundamentalist," or "Bible-thumper," or worse. They feel like a label describes a person. But they rarely attempt to take the far more important step of actually understanding something about these people they are confidently quick to categorize. But dismissive labeling does little to further democratic debate and does nothing at all to create an understanding, based in empathy, for the values of others.
Again, empathy's role in a democracy like ours does not call for some mushy middle ground where we all have to agree with each other. That would be a failure of both pluralism's promise and democracy's demands. Instead, empathy should create a realm for vibrant debate based upon respect, not stereotypes and unfounded allegations. The problems that Kansas, and the whole of the United States, should be addressed by our democratic system, not caused by them. Under the law, we are all, no matter our faith or lack of it, equal citizens. Empathy helps us treat each other like ones.
Yet, and if it has never been instituted nor has the suggestion that it be instituted occurred, then why would it be an issue to pass the law?
Well I agree that empathy is a good thing.
So please, Carr, practice your "empathy" skills on behalf of the Muslim American woman plaintiff in the New Jersey case "S.D. v. M.J.R."
In this case a trial court judge wrongly and improperly considered Shariah law in his ruling, after hearing testimony on Shariah law from an imam. The trial court denied the woman a restraining order against her abusive ex-husband on the grounds that Shariah made his conduct excusable.
Here is the opinion of the appellate court, which discusses (and reverses) the trial court ruling:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17690081954141610726
The same case is also discussed here:
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/02/the-real-impact-of-sharia-law-in-america/
SB79 will prevent such wrongful and improper rulings as the trial court made in this case.
SB79 does not represent any lack of empathy as you assume - it is actually a result of empathy for women and children whose full protection under the law is endangered by Shariah, which does not treat women equally with men or consider the best interests of children.
"These cases are the stories of Muslim American families, mostly Muslim women and children, who were asking American courts to preserve their rights to equal protection and due process. These families came to America for freedom from the discriminatory and cruel laws of Shariah. When our courts then apply Shariah law in the lives of these families, and deny them equal protection, they are betraying the principles on which America was founded.
"The study’s findings suggest that Shariah law has entered into state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy. Some commentators have said there are no more than one or two cases of Shariah law in U.S. state court cases; yet we found 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate published cases.
"Others have asserted with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy; yet we found 15 Trial Court cases, and 12 Appellate Court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in these particular cases. The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with Constitutional protections."
http://shariahinamericancourts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Sharia_Law_And_American_State_Courts_1.4_06212011.pdf
http://www.islamicpluralism.org/documents/982.pdf
- Andrew Whitehead
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/CAIRMuslimsTruth.html
Harkrader's one, single item of such evidence is that Ibrahim Hooper, spokesmen for the Council for American-Islamic Relations, has said of SB79: "All it does is increase hostility toward Islam and suspicion of Muslims."
So perhaps this might be an appropriate moment to take a look at CAIR.
I know of no better or more interesting way to do so than to offer for your entertainment the following remarkable legal case, in which CAIR filed suit against Andrew Whitehead for having dared to post the truth about CAIR on his website ( http://www.anti-cair-net.org ). CAIR ultimately settled their suit without going to trial, when they found out that they would have to submit to the normal discovery process and let the defendant inspect their records!
"Terms of the settlement are confidential. However, no apology was issued, no retraction or corrections made, and the statements that triggered CAIR’s suit remain on the ACAIR website."
( - Yep - they sure do! see for yourself: http://www.anti-cair-net.org )
The most interesting documents are these ones, filed by the defendant:
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/Response.html
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/MotionCompelCAIR2.pdf
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/Dismissed
Here is the full set of filings from both sides:
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/LegalDetails
http://www.aifdemocracy.org/news.php?id=7698
Carr, the point of SB79 is ensure that foreign legal codes such as Islamic law are not allowed to deprive any Kansas residents of the full rights, liberties and equal treatment that we want everyone to enjoy.
SB79 does does not "target another group of Kansans solely for their faith," as you suggest (without offering the slightest explanation or support.)
SB79 does precisely the OPPOSITE of "targeting." It serves to PROTECT women and children of Muslim families who might become involved in divorce or child custody cases.
Islamic law is extremely unfair to women, and it does not consider the best interests of children as we do in the USA.
Anyone who wants all Americans, including Muslim American women and children, to enjoy the same human rights, freedoms and equality, to the same degree, should be entirely in favor of SB79.
CAIR and others will obviously not want us to do it either here or abroad.
-- Bill Vaughan