Khan on Sharia

Khizr Khan Believes the Constitution ‘Must Always Be Subordinated to the Sharia’

Well, it looks like he did in 1983.

Anybody discussed the matter with him, lately?

The quoted expression does not appear anywhere in the body of the article.

There is nothing to support attribution of those words to him at any time.

And, anyway, what if he does actually think so?

Many are the Christians - including not only the conservative or orthodox but religious liberals, Unitarians, John Brown, Abraham Lincoln, Voltaire, Jefferson, John Locke, every pope who ever lived, all American anti-slavery leaders of the 19th Century, Martin Luther King, and many others, come to that - who would insist human law must conform to God's law.

Nonetheless, precious few of them, today, even among the conservative and the orthodox, would accept that adulterers and homosexuals should be stoned.

Inconsistent of them?

Take it up with them.

PS.

Would Fred Lundgren ask a priest or a devout Presbyterian the sort of question he asks Congressman Keith Ellison?

In your private life [my emphasis - PV], do you elevate adherence to any aspect of your religious law (Sharia law) above any aspect of the American Constitution or constitutionally protected laws?

A Christian might well answer affirmatively because she tithes, never uses contraception, will never get a divorce, prays more than once a day, reads the Bible daily, teaches Sunday School, and helps at her local church with charity work.

A Catholic priest or nun might (!) never marry, a Christian pastor might refuse to officiate at a gay wedding, a Catholic nurse or doctor might never perform an abortion, a Christian wedding planner might never plan a gay (or Jewish?) wedding, a Buddhist might serve only vegan dishes at his restaurant.

A Christian - or indeed any - parent might disown and renounce a child who took up the life of a porn actress, sex worker, or criminal - or, sadly, homosexual.

A Jewish parent, or indeed any parent, might actively discourage a child marrying outside her religion or ethnic group.

However much we might regret or even deplore any of this, how is it Fred's business?

Or whatever Muslims might do that is analogous?

I agree in rejecting honor killings and child marriages and even arranged marriages.

And I deny a parent's right to deny his child medical care, something some sorts of Christians are apt to do.

But Fred's worries seem far more sweeping.

Maybe I miss the point?

Personally, my own concern is about efforts by the religious to impose religious laws or views on American public life.

Yes, that applies to Muslim religious law.

But not only that.