| AL State Senator Cam Ward seems sure that the Alabama Constitution doesn't have enough amendments and the Legislature doesn't have real problems to deal with this session. Why else would he be sponsoring yet another Constitutional amendment to ban - get this - "Sharia Law" in Alabama? Ward pre-filed the "American and Alabama Laws for Alabama Courts" amendment (SB33) in the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 4th.The text of the bill mirrors model legislation written by David Yerushalmi, president of the "Society of Americans for Natural Existence." Its Web site is only accessible by username & password. According to the SPLC: Ideally, he would outlaw Islam and deport Muslims and other "non-Western, non-Christian" people to protect the United States' "national character." An ultra-orthodox Jew, he is deeply hostile toward liberal Jews. He derides U.S.-style democracy because it allows more than just an elite, privileged few to vote.
This isn't the first such attempt to address a Muslim unicorn non-existent problem: Ward is not the first Alabama lawmaker to introduce an anti-Shariah measure. In 2011, Republican state Senator Gerald Allen sponsored SB 62, a virtual replica of Oklahoma’s notorious anti-Shariah “Save Our State” amendment, which was struck down on Tuesday by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Allen’s proposal, which singled out Shariah law as its principle target, was not taken up for consideration before last year’s legislative session ended.
Yerushalmi/Ward's bill is much more broadly written than the Oklahoma bill and is raising alarm among religious leaders. The March 2012 issue of First Things, a journal published by the Institute of Religion and Public Life has an article on the dangers of anti-Sharia laws: Though popular with secularists and religious conservatives, anti-Sharia legislation does not defend against theocracy but calls into question our society’s fundamental commitments to meaningful religious liberty and meaningful access to the courts. These commitments have been relied on by generations of Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, and Jews, and to try to remove them for Muslims both is unjust to Muslims and sets a dangerous precedent for other religious groups. The entire article is worth a read - particularly by Senator Ward and his co-sponsors - because it illustrates how this legislation can easily be used against people of all religions. For instance, the traditional Jewish wedding ceremony includes the signing of the ketubah - the marriage contract - that spells out the obligations of the groom to the bride. It governs behavior, support, and monetary obligations. Muslim weddings have similar contracts. These are religious not legal documents, but their breach often forms the basis for secular divorces. When bankruptcy courts apply canon law in determining property rights for a diocese or when courts enforce arbitration agreements based on biblical principles pursuant to widely invoked rules of “Christian conciliation,” the rule of law is not jeopardized. Anti-Sharia legislation proposes an unconstitutional double standard. Canon law and biblical principles are not dirty words in the American court system, and Sharia should not be either.
It would surely be delicious if this amendment passes and the first group to be caught up in it is a Baptist church in conflict with a pastor or something similar. Senator Ward should remember the auto executives picked up as part of the immigration law and consider what "unintended consequences" will result from this latest piece of ill-considered legislation. |
