Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo
Director, Research Center for Religion in Society and Culture

Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo

Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo is Professor Emeritus of Puerto Rican and Latino Studies at Brooklyn College and Distinguished Scholar of the City University of New York.

 ALL POSTS

Jesuits and Shariah

In high school, the Jesuits taught me that to find a principled answer to any question, it had to be stood on its head. So, before responding about Islamic law, we ought to ask first if U.S. law should make room for Christian teachings?

It seems to me that the incorporation of Christian religious teachings into U.S. law is justified by some variation of the following two arguments:

A) The historical origins and demographic predominance of Christians in the U.S. explain why Christian principles are the basis for U.S. law.

B) U.S. law is based on Christianity because Christianity is the true religion.

(I know that the atheistic response would be: “Never accommodate law to the practice of any religion.” But this is so foreign to democratic and constitutional principles that it borders on being anti-American.)

If one elects Principle B as the reason for the Christianity reflected in the U.S. legal code, then adopting Sharia under any form is a retrograde measure. If you are irrevocably right, what need is there of change? Of course, the same argument B is used in Islamic countries to deny Christian or secular interpretations of law.

If, on the other hand, A is the principle invoked, then the issue to Sharia or not to Sharia is more dicey. Principle A supposes evolution, change and relativity to public law. Unlike clerical elites, government is not supposed to support a religious solution to problems, but to accommodate the ethical presumptions of the majority. To a secular government, each citizen is equal: there is no legitimate preference for Christians over Muslims or Jews, nor for Protestants over Catholics. However, over time, both the ethical presumptions and the demographic majority may change. Invoking Principle A theoretically suggests that if and when Muslims form the majority in any jurisdiction, then Sharia law can be sensibly reflected in the public legal code.

As a goy in a city with many Jews, I learned how at a very local level this is implemented in New York. Jews, I was told, may not push the buttons of an elevator on the Sabbath. But for good order, the city pays for the installation of special programming so that a New York elevator automatically stops at each floor. The taxpayer may pay a bit more for this engineering, but the city benefits overall by bending itself to the needs of the population. In a similar way, certain parking restrictions are lifted on Catholic holy days of obligation, like December 8th, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. Some religious people who are against swearing in an oath are allowed to make a “solemn promise.” Atheists who do not believe in God, need not invoke the Diety when testifying in a courtroom.

With those examples in mind, might a U.S. jurisdiction accommodate itself to Islamic law? My answer would not be absolute: while I can bend to local circumstances, there are some laws which can never be broken. Issues like public health, marriage laws, and the death by beheading demand civic control over religious strictures. Moreover, we should not pretend that this is the first time history has confronted a problem such as this, even if it is somewhat new to the U.S. Medieval Spain offers examples of what to do and what not to do in accommodating three or more faiths in these delicate matters. The one constant remains clear: making and obeying laws is a matter of constant growth and maturity.

By Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo  |  February 17, 2008; 10:17 PM ET  | Category:  Interfaith Issues Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: American Law and Shariah are Incompatible | Next: Living Shari`a in the West

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



this is a shockingly senseless article-

professor(?) stevens-arroyo-

the constitution was drafted by deists-
the words 'god' or 'jesus' do not exist in it, anywhere-
the word 'creator' is used, deliberately-

the framework of the basis of the government of america, is not christian.

as a matter of fact- as a professor- i challenge you to find even ONE passage from the entie bible that speaks about equality for all people-

it does not exisat- period-

and please dont try that old chestnut about no greeks or freemen etc..as that specifically apllies to baptized christians- excluding everyone else (and women)

your knowledge of sharia law is non-existent.

it does not SUPPLANT or REPLACE current laws-
but is a tool of MEDIATION- COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY and ONLY if it DOES NOT CONFLICT with the laws in place-

not only that- it is only used for CIVL LAW-
CRIMINAL LAW is not it's domain.

o am not an atheist- but you embarrass me with your - there is no other way to put it- ignorance.
unbelievable what passes for scholarship these days-

Posted by: VICTORIA | April 21, 2008 2:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

In Europe many centuries they had some sort of sharia but it was in a christian form.

Posted by: John | March 2, 2008 1:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Stop the WAR! PARA la GUERRA : Stop the War!


MORE Jobs!
Mas Trabajos:

SAFER Food!
Un alimento más seguro:

MORE Protection For Kids!
Más protección para los niños:
--

Curriculum Vitae, Resume:

"HiLLARY Clinton has been in the Senate just four more years than Mr. Obama, she has been on the Armed Services Committee and traveled around the world with Mr. McCain..."

Espanol: "HiLLARY Clinton ha sido en el senado apenas cuatro más años que Sr. Obama, ella ha estado en el comité de las fuerzas armadas y ha viajado alrededor del mundo con Sr. McCain..."

--

VOTE: Experiencia! EXPERiENCE:

HiLLARY for PREZ, Para el Presidente, Yea, Si!

VOTO: Acción! ACTiON:

--
1st. Lady(señora), 1st. Gentleman(caballero).
--


{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}//////
Better H*i*L*L*A*R*Y than BORACK
[][][][][]][][]][]][]]][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
http://USA/US/USA/USA/USA/USA
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
STOP THE WAR PARa la GUERRA
{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:........_________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton/ /// МИР,평화, 和平:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton/ ACTION/EXPERiENCE


--
More JOBS, Better Pay!
Más TRABAJOS, Mejoran paga!
--

Thank You, Gracias, Sweet Dulce A*M*E*R*i*C*A!

Posted by: Anonymous | February 19, 2008 9:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment

MORE Jobs! SAFER Food! MORE Protection For Kids!:
--
"HiLLARY Clinton has been in the Senate just four more years than Mr. Obama, she has been on the Armed Services Committee and traveled around the world with Mr. McCain..."

--

VOTE:
EXPERiENCE!

HiLLARY for PREZ, Yea!

VOTO:
ACTiON!

--
1st. Lady, 1st. Gentleman Too.
--


{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}//////
Better H*i*L*L*A*R*Y than BORACK
[][][][][]][][]][]][]]][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
http://USA/US/USA/USA/USA/USA
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
STOP THE WAR PARa la GUERRA
{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:........_________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton/ /// МИР,평화, 和平:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton/ ACTION/EXPERiENCE


--
More JOBS, Better Pay! Más TRABAJOS mejoran paga!
--

Thank You, Gracias, Sweet Dulce A*M*E*R*i*C*A!

Posted by: PARa la GUERRA | February 19, 2008 9:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment

In what way are "Christian principles...the basis for U.S. law"? What are some specific examples of laws in the US which are derived directly from the New Testament, which did not exist previously, and which are not common to most cultures? What is the percentage of these (if they exist) among all laws?

Should there be a law making it illegal to resist evil? How about a law forbidding public prayer and requiring people to pray in their closets with the door closed?

Posted by: skeptomonist | February 18, 2008 2:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

They say religions are systems of beliefs. That is at the heart of the problem, primeval ignorance. Religions are systems of laws, not beliefs with the greatest punishment for criminals possible, hell -being set on fire to burn forever. Thus there is a natural conflict between religion and government unless it's a government based upon the law of a given religion.

In cases where 'a' religion dominates the government a certain sense of paranoia always prevails. Have you noticed that a certain mental condition is up and about in the former democracy knows as the USA? Ecumenical!!!!

IT's Devil at work, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul All three great faiths that now dominate politics are Devil worshipers. When the Muslims get on board ecumenical it's all over but the opening up of the earth and all falling through the crack. Nuclear war may well be unavoidable for this is a localized insanity that we can expect other religion free countries to resist.

Right now we can suspect the next terrorist attack is being planned at a real property tax exempt mosque. It will be carried out using unaccounted and tax free money that is also tax deductible to the 'gifter to God.' Isn't that encouraging us to, "go to our churches, temples, synagogues, mosques and pray" -- else we'll go to hell. I guess that's what 'born-again' Bush had in mind when he said that, first words 9-11-2001. Religion is real good fer ya, make ye moral. Make Bush president.

Posted by: BGone | February 18, 2008 11:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Gaby, sonofunclesam@gmail.com:

Yall step out in the alley and settle your dispute like gentlemen. Marquis of Queensbury mind you.

Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo:

I was worried there was no foundation to your arguments until you admited being taught by Jesuits. Now I know there's none.

Now about all that gold the Jesuits received from the Conquistadors. And, yes, those heretickle Jews managed to get a handfull or two that the Jesuits recovered for God's work, keepinhg closet gays employed enforcing God's law. Ever see that "palace of God" with the solid gold altar where the son of God is sacrificed so sins can be forgiven? Is it a Jesuit church? That gold gushes innocent blood.

Just a friendly reminder, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul strikes terror into the hearts of the truly God freaing. But then the big money comes to those leading the multitudes to hell. Souls are really cheap, huh?

Whatever will the ministry do when all religions that terrorize children with threats of hell are deemed unlawful, (actually they already are - truth in advertising and anti terrorist laws). Do you ever get the feeling you have wasted your life chasing the almighty dollar in the name of God only to find out it was really Devil in the burning bush?

Posted by: BGone | February 18, 2008 11:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Yes, Possum. That is the idea. Let everyone practice atheism, religion or whatever without being dictated to. It would be unconstitutional to keep people from such practices.

Posted by: sonofunclesam@gmail.com | February 16, 2008 10:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment

“If you want an atheistic dictatorship”

Sonofunclesam@gmail.com
Dictatorship? That’s a completely different political system.. One man running the country…. We do not want that any more than we, or you want a Religious dictatorship…

We want only a constitutional republic that is religion-neutral. No preference to any religious group. This is the only way to insure that all religions, and those of us that choose none, will be treated equally in the eyes of the law. Believe it or not we WANT you to worship as much as you see fit. Build more churches, hold your rituals, rites and ceremonies! We want you to be completely free to commune with whatever god you like.
What we don’t want is one particular religion, or perhaps worse, one particular sect or denomination of a religion, imposing THEIR interpretation of god's laws on those that do not subscribe to those beliefs. Are you saying you do? That sir, is not a constitutional republic, that is a theocracy, that sir is not what we want, and I guarantee, you do not either.

Posted by: Possum | February 15, 2008 4:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

What is it with some of the panelists on this board constantly accusing atheists of being un- or anti-American? I'm sorry we frighten you, but what decent person posts crap like that?

Posted by: ash | February 15, 2008 3:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

What a muppet!

You Americans are so dumb when it comes to your pet religions - Christianity and Americanism.

Posted by: False Idol | February 15, 2008 3:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

sonofunclesam@gmail.com,

You are more than welcome to practice anything you want as long as you do not infringe on my right to do the same.

Don't you tell me to go live somewhere else. I want to live in a country that is secular in its application of government and the law, as it should be. Keep your religion in your church or whatever you attend, but keep it out of my space.

Posted by: Gaby | February 15, 2008 12:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hey, Gaby

The constitution of the US allows freedom to practice religion, which means that no law can take away that constitutional right. If you want an atheistic dictatorship, go live some other place.

Posted by: sonofunclesam@gmail.com | February 15, 2008 11:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"(I know that the atheistic response would be: “Never accommodate law to the practice of any religion.” But this is so foreign to democratic and constitutional principles that it borders on being anti-American.)"

Excuse me?

Foreign to democratic and constitutional principles????

Anti-American???

I would say you owe a lot of people an apology. I am not an atheist, borderline agnostic maybe, but the god I believe in is certainly not the Christian or the Islamic god.

Therefore, please, “Never accommodate law to the practice of any religion.”

Posted by: Gaby | February 14, 2008 6:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

“Issues like public health, marriage laws, and the death by beheading demand civic control over religious strictures”

Marriage is a religious, sacred institution. What is the point/purpose of civic ‘marriage laws’ ? There is no way a multicultural society can remain/become religion-neutral as long as the predominant/preferred religion’s ceremonies and rituals are intertwined into public law.

“people who are against swearing in an oath are allowed to make a “solemn promise.”
“need not invoke the Diety”

They are ‘allowed’? Allowed? As in, are given permission? Why are ‘swearing’ and references to “THE” deity even a part of the civic process? Would it not be simpler, more ‘tolerant’ to remove pointless and meaningless specific religious utterances and chants from the civic processes altogether?

Posted by: Possum | February 14, 2008 3:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company