Well said, Governor Christie. I’m still not sure I want you to be president, but you sure got this one right. The title is from Christie’s response to questions regarding Sohail Mohammed, whom he nominated to a New Jersey judgeship. The whole thing is on the flip.
Please share widely!
dont-get-cute says
The article confuses me when it says that “…it gives one a idea of what Gov. Christie would sound like on the matter as a presidential candidate. It begs the questions: what would Gov. Christie have said on a podium across from Herman Cain while he insisted that “American law in American courts, period” was one of the more important platform issues of his campaign, or how he would respond to other states banning Sharia Law? The topic seems to put him in a far more centrist position than many others running.”
Seems to me he’s saying that the idea that a Muslim American judge would not practice American law is crap, and crazy. How is that more “centrist” than Cain’s position, which substituted the word “period” for “crap” and “crazy”? Is using four letter words and insults more centrist? Is the writer insinuating that Cain is anti-Muslim to the point that he wouldn’t appoint a Muslim judge because he thinks a Muslim judge would use Sharia law in the courtroom? I think that’s unfair, because Cain’s statement implies that he’d have no problem appointing a Muslim judge, because it wouldn’t matter what religion or ethnicity the judge was, he’d have to practice American law in an American court, which is the same thing Christie said. Unless Cain said he’d never appoint a Muslim judge, of course, I only know the quoted statement.
David says
the difference is that Cain seems to think that this “Sharia law” business is a serious matter deserving of attention. Christie, in contrast, thinks it’s “crap,” and that the people who are worried about it are “crazies.” And I think Christie is right.
Cain, FWIW, has made clear that he views Muslims with far more suspicion than adherents of other faiths.
dont-get-cute says
I think Cain was responding to reporters questions and debate questions, and he answered the same way Christie did: American law in American courts, period.
And surely the Muslim judge Christie appointed was also required to swear a “loyalty oath” to the American Constitution, right? If he wasn’t, then I think there is indeed a problem, if judges are not bound to American law.
David says
Of course, all judges are required to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. Non-crazy people think that’s enough. Cain doesn’t – he has a special test for Muslims. Read the link in my previous comment.
dont-get-cute says
His personal trust of Christians and special assurance he’d ask of Muslims is not an unreasonable distinction. Muslims have a special unique tenet in their religion that calls for theocratic Islamic republics, like the Islamic Republic of Iran. Other religions do not call for replacing secular government with theocracy, they actually call for respecting secular government (or disrespecting it, but at least accepting it as divine will for there to be government, apart from the church. Now, it is possible for individual Muslims to make pragmatic choices to live peacefully and accept infidel rule, and indeed most Muslims do make that pragmatic choice, but they can remain faithful Muslims only if they make that choice in the spirit of, well, a sleeper cell. All faithful Muslims are merely pretending to be peaceful, and do, as a matter of central faith, desire sharia law over all the world.
Oh, thought I’d share this:
David says
we’re all done here. Thanks for playing though.
Christopher says
…who call for the replacement of secular law with theocracy. A few of them are even frighteningly close to the levers of power.
dont-get-cute says
There is a difference between influencing civil law so that it comports better with the laws of the bible or any religion’s laws, and trying to bring about a wholesale overthrow of secular civil law in order to replace it with a single religious authority that not only rules government but rules the churches too, like in Islamic republics.
Which people are you talking about, who are close to the levers of power, who call for a replacement of secular law with theocracy?? That’s crap, it’s just crazy, and it is you that just said it. American law in American courts, period, is what I say, like Herman Cain said and I think what Chris Christie said too, and maybe you and David said too. No theocracy in America, America has a secular government.
Are you talking about Christian millennialists or whatever they are called? Who hope to bring about Armageddon and 1000 years of peace, after a bleak holy war and locusts and blood and the four horsemen and all that (uh oh, is lasthorseman gone?). I agree that is pretty much the equivalent of Islams call for global sharia law. And I think they actually are talking about the same goal, the thousand years of peace under Jesus would be Sharia law. But though the goal is the same, those Millenialist Christians aren’t legally hanging homosexuals from bridges, and quasi-legally operating training camps for slitting throats and flying planes into skyscrapers. But it’s true, they’re just passing the buck, letting the other guys do all the dirty work, to achieve the same sharia law while they claim to be opposing it.
SomervilleTom says
I’ll let Christopher share who he’s thinking of.
I’m thinking of politicians who demand that we make abortion again illegal. I’m thinking of those who demand that the federal government deny benefits to gay and lesbian married couples. I’m thinking of those who set back research in genetics by at least a decade with their religiously-motivated ban on embryonic stem cell research.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but how else can you understand the many public statements of Michelle Bachmann?
Each of these is an attempt to impose religious (primarily Christian) law upon allegedly secular America.
Feel free to agree or disagree with each of these as you wish, but don’t think you can get away with calling them anything but a transparent attempt to impose Christian theocracy on the rest of us.
Christopher says
…is pretty tame compared to what I’m thinking of in this case. Denying benefits to homosexuals and making abortions harder to obtain? That’s child’s play compared to the death penalty they want to impose for having or providing abortion, being homosexual, or even committing adultery. They have come out and said they do not believe in religious pluralism and that yes, God’s law (at least their interpretation thereof) should be the supreme and only law of the land. Google “Christian Reconstructionism” and you will find a host of articles from the past few years that describe exactly who they are, what they want, and whose ears they have.
SomervilleTom says
I didn’t want to overreach in my response.
I agree, wholeheartedly, with you.
tblade says
Slightly off topic…
What amuses me is that we often hear some on the Right talk about governing according to “God’s Law” and installing a judiciary that rules in accordance with “God’s Law” when it comes to the right to choose and marriage and such.
How is “God’s Law” drastically different than Sharia Law?
shillelaghlaw says
I think in that context, when people say “God’s Law” they’re talking about Natural Law, along the lines of what Hobbes, Locke, and Thomas Aquinas wrote about. (I hope so anyway.)
SomervilleTom says
When I hear that phrase (“God’s Law”), it nearly always comes from Christians who specifically mean “The Word of God”. In my experience, folks who mean “natural law” use the phrase “natural law”, specifically to differentiate it from its religious counterpart.
I see essentially no difference between “God’s Law”, “Sharia Law”, and “Torah”. Each asserts a set of regulations and asserts supernatural endorsement of them — together with a claim of uniqueness (“This is the ONLY law”).
marcus-graly says
has the following inscribed in the front wall:
I suspect that sense that many (though not all) Christians who say US code is based in divine law mean. That it was derived from the principle’s of biblical commandments, not that it implements them literally.
Christopher says
…but just to be clear there are different specifics among the various forms of divine law. I also agree that when people mean natural law they say natural law.
Christopher says
…obviously Muslim law is the work of the devil, while Christian law is the source of all good:) Seriously, score another one for rank hypocrisy!
joeltpatterson says
Because if so, he’s lying.
This Sharia law crap is a PR campaign by a Mr. Yerushalmi, helped by conservative Republican Frank Gaffney. Yerushalmi has a history of anti-Muslim, anti-black bigotry. He should be untouchable, but he’s linked in with the Conservative movement now.
Let’s not get in a hurry to praise Christie as a “straight talker” when he’s tried to pin blame on someone who does not deserve it.
tedf says
I’d like to devote an episode of “Shonda Watch” to Yerushalmi, who is an embarrassment to American Jews. What’s particularly galling about the whole thing is that there is a long tradition of US courts recognizing arbitral awards from Jewish religious tribunals that decide disputes under Jewish law!
dont-get-cute says
People could agree to let a Golden Retriever arbitrate their dispute according to Dog’s Law, and as long as they agreed to abide by its decision I think US courts would recognize the dog’s ruling.
On the other hand, if a Jewish or Muslim or Dog’s Law couple married according to their religious law, I don’t think they are bound by that, regular secular law applies to their marriage. For example, we don’t recognize polygamous marriages in our courts, even if they were legally married in their country.
kbusch says
One important lesson, I thought, of 9/11 was that it was crucially important for the U.S. to have and keep friends among Muslims. Domestically, Muslim friends and patriots are our first line of defense against radical Muslim terrorists. The Knuckle Dragging wing of the conservative movement never understood this. Professional prosecutors like Governor Christie evidently did.