Religious liberty scholar and advocate Douglas Laycock has offered both praise for and criticism of the U.S. Catholic Bishops’ statement on religious freedom, “Our First, Most Cherished Liberty.” Speaking of the document’s examples of contemporary threats to religious liberty, Laycock remarks that “it wisely includes the example of state immigration laws that prevent the church from ministering to illegal aliens. This is important both for its own sake and because it shows that serious attacks on religious liberty come from the right as well as the left. The statement says nothing about anti-sharia legislation or widespread opposition to the building of mosques—two more examples of attacks on religious liberty from the right.” This is an entirely fair point, and should be taken to heart by the bishops and by conservatives who are (entirely rightly, in my view) concerned about very grave threats to religious freedom coming from the left and from the Obama administration. Rob Vischer has written insightfully in First Things about the dangers of anti-sharia laws. Jennifer Bryson and I have criticized anti-mosque sentiment in an op-ed piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Catholics have two reasons to speak out in defense of the religious freedom of Muslims, Jews, Protestants, Latter-Day Saints, and other non-Catholics, as well as their own religious freedom. The first (and more important) reason is simply that it is the right thing to do. Faith and reason bear common witness to the profound truth that religious liberty is a right held equally by all. The second reason is that the denial of religious liberty for any one group erodes the foundations of religious liberty for everyone. If you value your own religious freedom, it is prudent to defend the other guy’s religious freedom when it comes under attack. A precedent established by people in, say, Murfreesboro, Tennessee who despise Islam and see it as a pernicious force, may prove very handy to people in, say, San Francisco who have a similar attitude towards Catholicism. (I hope it goes without saying that not everyone in Murfreesboro is hostile towards Islam and not everyone in San Francisco despises Catholicism. By “people” I mean some people, not everyone or even most people in these or other cities.)
(Cross post.)
June 5th, 2012 | 4:11 pm
Note that most atheists have similar issues with religion in general as many Christians do with Islam. They want to defend religious liberty – at minimum, for self-defense – but are wary of being forced to practice elements of a religion they don’t believe in. Not always an easy balance to strike.
June 5th, 2012 | 6:12 pm
Because religious bodies can have different views on the same issue, basing them on their faith, I have wondered about what baseline might be recognized as a measure before legislation appears to favor one over another. I am inclined to think that natural law, in so far as it is applicable to the issue (for example in the marriage debate) would be useful. Because that language isn’t always embraced, another thought comes to mind, namely the traditional values held in common across cultures and time. In 2009 there was a UN resolution to have a workshop in 2010 to determine what those values are inorder to promote and protect human rights. I haven’t ever seen if the workshop took place… would have been interesting. (http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/d_res_dec/A_HRC_12_L13_rev1.doc)
June 6th, 2012 | 9:56 pm
I am puzzled. If a Muslim wants to write a will in accord with Sharia, he has every right to do so. But if he does not and a Muslim relative wants to take him to court to make the will comply with Sharia, that is not (I would believe) a US court’s job.
If a Muslim dies without a will, I would suggest that it is not a US court’s job to figure out what Sharia would have demanded.
As I see it, Muslims can live within Sharia in the US as long as they do not conflict with US law (only one wife at a time, no stoning, no hand cutting off, etc.). US courts do not seek to enforce Canon Law on Catholics, do they?
I hesistate to disagree with Timothy George; I must be missing something.
June 10th, 2012 | 9:11 pm
The assumption here is that all religions value religious freedom. This is one of the primary reasons people are actually opposing sharia which substitutes freedom of religion for apostasy laws and freedom of speech for a blasphemy law. Consider the OIC (representing 56 Islamic states – not a fringe) and their drive to introduce the criminalisation of speech against Islam. This is effectively an international blasphemy law and hardly compatible with notions of freedom. In opposing sharia people are generally driven by a desire to retain freedom of religion which is diminished by sharia.
June 11th, 2012 | 11:35 am
Vickie Janson –
Not quite. Consider the closely-related – in the Constitution as well as in practice – notion of “freedom of speech”. Even people who advocate against freedom of speech are allowed to do so… up until they start acting on that.
Religions are allowed rather large freedom to govern the affairs of their adherents in this country. Consider the Amish, who get plenty of legal exemptions. Or the orthodox Jews in the New York area, who have their own courts and special arrangements with secular prosecutors. This has caused issues in the past.
Having separate Sharia course for those who choose to accept their authority would, therefore, hardly be unprecedented. Forcing those outside the community to abide by those strictures, however, would be a problem.
June 15th, 2012 | 5:46 am
[...] leading conservative voices, notably Princeton law professor Robert George, denounce the anti-Sharia movement as an attack on religious freedom. Now Matthew Schmitz, the [...]
June 16th, 2012 | 11:15 pm
[...] leading conservative voices, notably Princeton law professor Robert George, denounce the anti-Sharia movement as an attack on religious freedom. Now Matthew Schmitz, the [...]
June 18th, 2012 | 10:13 pm
[...] not any sympathy for sharia but rather love for our constitutional principles. As Robert P. George warned in First Things, “A precedent established by people in, say, Murfreesboro, Tennessee who [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact