With all the talk of Sharia law and whether that should be implemented here in America I’m once again explaining my thoughts on that. First off Sharia law is part of a religious doctrine. Sharia means a pathway, a means of living a moral life. I understand that not everyone that professes to be a Muslim will follow Sharia law, just like not all Christians follow every word in the Bible.

Now as far as allowing that in America there is no question about that. Freedom of religion is a constitutional right, a guarantee. Everyone knows that! The only issue with that is if those practicing that belief system are breaking civil law. You can believe whatever you like, you can’t actually do whatever you like. That’s true even if your religion tells you too! The telling part is Sharia law.

What we are really talking about here are moral values and codes. I don’t know of any Christian groups that practice everything as told in the Old Testament of the Bible. You know the eye for an eye thing, and attacking your enemies, stuff like that. No, in general the morals we are talking about are outlined in the New Testament. The Quaran, the religious text of the Muslims only has one testament and that testament is disturbing in some sections. 109 verses of it in fact. Commonly called the sword verses.

There are many Muslims today that say they do not believe or practice anything in those 109 verses. That all of that is subject to interpretation. Some saying it should be practiced only within the church itself, never involving others, that Muslims only are subject to that. The only problem I have with that argument is that those verses involve the “others,” commonly known as Infidels to Muslim people.

I do question that sincerity of that argument. If that were truly the case, that believing in that section of the Quaran is not a requirement to live a moral life, why haven’t they been edited out? In Christianity we created a new covenant with God, the actions of the past where no longer required, no longer “law” according to the new text. Remember when we are speaking of law in this context we are speaking of the moral choices.

And that is where government meets morality. We all agree that we want government to act in a moral fashion, specifically what we ourselves consider to be the moral choice, and that is what we all vote for, our moral choice! That being established how do we delineate what exactly is moral and what is not? We decided upon a constitutional republic, the power is in the hands of the people!

The majority decides. That is the simplest answer to that question. A simple democracy states that 51 votes defeat 49 votes ever time, no questioning that outcome. But that isn’t majority enough! Yes, that’s the thinking there, and why in some circumstances a super majority is required. In fact, there are three levels to a supermajority. 3/5 (60%), 2/3 (67%), and 3/4 (75%) each one used according to the severity of the action being proposed. It isn’t only in federal government, state government uses them, so do major corporations. All are designed to protect the interest of the minorities.

The big question here being, who holds the supermajority in America in regard to moral law? That our moral values have shifted over the last two hundred and fifty years isn’t in question. We often refer to the old beliefs as being fundamentalist. That old time religion! That the majority has, at times, chosen immoral actions based on fundamentalist beliefs can also not be questioned. Remember when I say OUR I mean, we the people, the citizens of the United States of America.

As far as sharia law goes here in America that is also up to the people. Whoever holds the supermajority in government can implement whatever they want. When choosing your candidate to hold public office aren’t you really deciding upon their moral choices, as they present them to you? I certainly hope you are not voting for someone because you think they will act immorally. Can you decide a persons’ morality based on their religious preference?

The bottom line, as far as I’m concerned, is this: all I can do is take your word for it. When you attach a document to your word, a testament to what you believe, I have to take your word for that as well. When that document states plainly, in 109 verses, the objective of that belief, I have to believe that is what you are working towards.

The Bible, specifically the New Testament, has the stated goal of what? Salvation. That’s the purpose of following the directives outlined in that text. What is the stated purpose of the Quaran? Again, following the directives in that text you can achieve salvation. The big difference lies in those directives! Now whether or not you follow all those directives I can’t know for sure. All I can do is take your word for it. That’s difficult when you tell me you believe in that text, but you don’t believe you have to follow that text. It’s an issue of trust.

I hear about Islamophobia. Yes, there is a certain amount of fear when you can’t trust someone. It isn’t about hate; it is about trust. You profess to worship Allah! I’m taking your word for that, I believe you. I just don’t trust you.