Now, far be it from us to impose our “un-nuanced” ways on anybody, but we simply can’t see the attraction of stonings, pre-teen marriage and forcing women to wear burlap bags. One would think that if the muslims, their women in particular, were so enamored with being treated slightly worse than livestock, they’d have stayed right at home.
My church teaches that premarital sex is wrong, based on our reading of the Christian Bible. So if I get a woman pregnant outside of marriage it’s perfectly legitimate for my church to say I can’t be a church officer, sing in the choir or preach from the pulpit.
Likewise it’s perfectly legitimate for Muslims in the West to arrange their private relationships in agreement with Sharia law.
The bright line we must not cross? My church can’t tell the government to put me in jail for premarital sex. The mosque can’t tell the government to fine a woman for not wearing her headscarf. In fact, the government must protect my individual right to sexual expression and the woman’s right to go around bare-headed--the church or mosque is not allowed to enforce any sanction beyond separation from the voluntary organization.
Both sources of authority (religion and state) are legitimate in their own sphere, but they must be kept separate.
Even Eisenhower and McArthur allowed the private practice of Shintoism in post-World War II Japan. They only forced it out of the government sphere.
From that perspective, Lord Phillips has it right. He made it very clear that any government sanctions must be based entirely on English and Welsh law, not on Sharia. But private individuals can voluntarily structure their lives and relationships following Christian church law or Sharia law.
0 comments:
Post a Comment