Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
On Law and Faith: The Sharia and Public Life
Last week's comments by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, are an important discussion not just for the 80 million Anglicans worldwide and the close to 2 million Muslims in the United Kingdom, but also for all people of faiths wrestling with the relationship of faith in the public sphere. Archbishop Williams also said "there is a constructive relationship between Islamic law and the statutory law of the United Kingdom." The query here is "What is the relationship of the sharia and the law of the land wherever it is the U.K., the Philippines, India, or the U.S.A.?"
As an Evangelical leader and a person of faith deeply involved in dialogue in the public sphere (with Jews, Muslims, atheists, secularists, Protestants and Catholics) I ask myself the question what is the relationship of the nation's law and the moral codes or laws of specific faith communities? I am strongly in favor of a government that allows for religious pluralism without officially or de facto endorsing any worldview, religious or not. I also believe people should influence policy from there perspective this includes but is not limited to people of faith. Granted, this is no easy task.
There are several challenges to including a relationship with sharia ( or any other religious law) with any government. First, how do you account with the varieties of interpretations and implementations? This is true when trying to incorporate any religious law into a nation's legal system. India and the Philippines have some accommodation for this Muslim moral code and it has had it's benefits and challenges. The varieties of interpretations among Islamic scholars (liberal, conservative, moderate, Islamic feminist, etc.) not to mention the distinctions between Sunni and Shi'a would have to be carefully worked out.
On another note, any religious law (no matter from what faith it evolves) that violates the dignity, life, and freedom of human beings must be rejected. This is a very complicated conversation that is too long to unpack in this forum (one must define dignity, life, and freedom).
Recently, I was asked about making the Constitution more aligned with the Bible. My response was, "Who's interpretation of the Bible?" Many times in my Evangelical circles,(I am unapologetically Christian and Evangelical but do not impose my faith on others and welcome for others to proclaim their faith or incredulity in healthy ways), people wrongly assert that the U.S. is a Christian nation. The U.S is not a Christian nation. It is a nation that has many Christians in it and was influenced by both Enlightenment and Protestant worldviews. If Western nations, the U.K. and U.S. included, are to affirm religious pluralism they must be careful to value religious worldviews while preserving the freedom of thought of its citizens.
In the case of the sharia with the U.K., I think the Archbishop of Canterbury was very careful in saying that some (not all) aspects of the sharia could be incorporated. This conversation is a long one and requires discernment and nuance. The long road ahead leaves queries like, "Which aspects should be included?", "Who determines what is incorporated and what is left out (the question of power)?", "What does incorporating aspects of sharia imply for existing values within British laws?" The challenge of every democracy in the sphere of legislation is how do we respect individual freedom, group distinctions (religious or otherwise), and avoid the tyranny of the majority.
I will continue to pray for the U.K and all the Western nations as they wrestle with the reality of welcoming the stranger in ways that eschew the tragic legacy of colonization, xenophobia, racism, sexism, and religious oppression. I will continue to pray for all immigrants as they wrestle with the reality of entering countries with laws and customs that are foreign to them. I will continue to pray and advocate for laws to be passed that reject oppression of women, children, and the most vulnerable among us. I will continue to pray and work that this world would navigate the public sphere with a respect for both life and faiths. Shalom, Salaam, Paz, Peace, and Amahoro.
By
Gabriel Salguero
|
February 12, 2008; 9:20 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: The Need for Honest God-Talk |
Next: Unity Requires Some Accomodation
Posted by: Johnny B. Goode | February 18, 2008 11:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Gaby,
My apologies and you are exactly right. Regardless of ones beliefs... or lack there of... the choice is a personal one and should be respected as such. As my mate says "Freedom of religion has to include Freedom FROM religion."
Posted by: Lady Rowen | February 15, 2008 10:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Lady Rowen,
Good comments.
But, please take it one step further: "...until no one has to hide their religion this country is not truly free."
How about: ....until no one has to hide their religion, or lack thereof, this country is not truly free.
Posted by: Gaby | February 15, 2008 12:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Salguero you wrote: “I am strongly in favor of a government that allows for religious pluralism without officially or de facto endorsing any worldview, religious or not. I also believe people should influence policy from their perspective; this includes but is not limited to people of faith. Granted, this is no easy task.”
I agree with you on the above. However the persistence used by certain groups, in the United States, to push their ideals and or way of life down the collective throats of others is, in my option, wrong. These same groups also have the loudest voice and use it to inform any and all as to how downtrodden they are. Again they are wrong… I can think of a couple of other groups who are much more maligned.
Next: “On another note, any religious law (no matter from what faith it evolves) that violates the dignity, life, and freedom of human beings must be rejected. This is a very complicated conversation that is too long to unpack in this forum (one must define dignity, life, and freedom).”
Yet that is happening everyday in the United States. Not only have the “bedroom police” managed to get a ban on same sex marriage they have also managed to convince a large portion of the population that the naked human body is pornographic. For all of the technological advances we have made we have somehow managed to slip backward in our thinking.
Next: “Recently, I was asked about making the Constitution more aligned with the Bible. My response was, "Who's interpretation of the Bible?" Many times in my Evangelical circles,(I am unapologetically Christian and Evangelical but do not impose my faith on others and welcome for others to proclaim their faith or incredulity in healthy ways), people wrongly assert that the U.S. is a Christian nation. The U.S is not a Christian nation. It is a nation that has many Christians in it and was influenced by both Enlightenment and Protestant worldviews. If Western nations, the U.K. and U.S. included, are to affirm religious pluralism they must be careful to value religious worldviews while preserving the freedom of thought of its citizens.“
I am Pagan and like you I do not impose my beliefs on others … although I have many attempt to impose their beliefs on me. Most Pagans were raised with one form of Christianity or another and urge our children to learn about other religions. We made our choice after a lot of study and seeking. My point here is that if I am interested I will come to you, until then please show some common respect and leave me in peace. I wish more Christians felt as you do.
Next: “The challenge of every democracy in the sphere of legislation is how do we respect individual freedom, group distinctions (religious or otherwise), and avoid the tyranny of the majority.”
I wish we could find a happy medium on this. It terrifies me to think of how many Pagans in this country hide their religion out of fear. Even today people fear losing their jobs, homes, friends and family and run the risk of being ostersized by their communities. Add to that the hostile treatment that some have received at the hands of neighbors, which resulted in damage to themselves or their property. I have had people tell me that we are lucky to live in such a free country, my response is always the same… until no one has to hide their religion this country is not truly free.
Lady Rowen
Posted by: Lady Rowen | February 15, 2008 8:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Jesus said, "I do not pray for the world."
The Apostle James said, "He that is a friend of the world is the enemy of God."
Are you more correct than they?
BTW the word REVEREND appears only once in the entire Bible [Psalm 111:9] and speaks specifically of God himself. No one who has seen God or knows God would have the audacity or effrontery to call himself or herself by the name of God. It is vain, egotistical, and pretentious at the very least to do so.