Comment on Texas Republican Primary having a normal one
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
Sharia is already prohibited… by the same first amendment which republicans ignore when they advocate for a theocracy…
Basically all of those bullet points listed are things republican “christians” do. They only have a problem with it when it’s brown people doing it.
Lest you think I’m advocating for sharia law, I’m not. I’m simply pointing out that “christian law” would be effectively the same thing, and they’re both equally prohibited by the constitution.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The various ideological tenants of the law aren’t prohibited. If a county wants to declare itself “dry” and refuse to issue alcohol sales permits, for instance, there’s no real state or federal guarantee against it. The fact that the people passing the law are doing so in the name of an Islamic faith rather than a Christian faith or a secular commitment to sobriety doesn’t normally play into the rule’s legality.
I don’t think people writing or voting on this legislation really know anything about Islamic religious teachings or legal codes.
If someone in a city council tried to cap the interest rate local creditors could charge, based on their opposition to the concept of usury, I doubt a lay Texan would key in on this being an aspect of Islamic fundamentalism unless some AM Talk Radio host or Joe Rogan affiliated podcaster mentioned it. If a local school district passed an ordinance protecting transgender athletes from discrimination, how many people might trace this back to The Prophet’s positive attitudes toward mukhannathun or Ayatollah Khomeini and Al-Azhar’s fatwas explicitly permitting reassignment surgery… unless a conservative pundit explicitly brought it up.
There was a whole Thirty Years War suggesting the definition of “Christian Law” is not so well-defined. But, again, I think there’s a very limited understanding of historical religious strictures across every faith. People tend to only know what they’re told of, within the context of the speaker delivering the message.
What you’d consider a normal Evangelical religious edict might fly directly in the face of a traditional Catholic or Eastern Orthodox legal code.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
Sharia law isn’t the sum of prohibitive laws based on Islam, it’s an entire legal system based on Islamic law.
If a county bans alcohol sales, it’s not sharia just because Islam prohibits alcohol. Even if someone on the county council happens to be muslim, if the legal system itself is secular, then an alcohol ban implemented under that system is also secular.
Sharia law implies you have imams writing the legal code, not legislators who happen to be muslim. “Freedom of religion” means anyone can practice any religion, but no laws can be passed on the basis of religion.
If you ban alcohol because it’s bad for the liver and the arteries, or because it destroys lives and families, or because drunk drivers are dangerous, then it’s not religiously motivated no matter what religion the people passing those laws follow.
The same logic applies to tax code and trans right. They should be written on a secular basis with the intent to be designed for what’s most beneficial to society. What’s a fair rate for people to pay to keep the public systems running and provide social safety nets for those who need them? What’s the most fair and inclusive way to enshrine human rights without marginalizing anyone?
If your religion says “be a good person and help others” so you get into politics so you can write good policy, it doesn’t make your policy religious unless you write religion into it or pass it under a religious legal system.
And I understand that there are major differences between protestant/catholic/orthodox christians, but the differences in substance doesn’t change the fact that if the legal system is secular, then the laws passed under it are secular (if those laws abide by the secular constitution).
When I said republicans want a theocracy, I meant it literally. They want to change the legal system from a secular one to a religious one. The substance of policy that would result from that change is secondary to the change itself. And yes, when they say “christian” they mean “evangelical protestant.” Which is even scarier, because at least catholics and orthodox christians respect human rights and value things like compassion and selfless service.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
If a Muslim community refuses to issue liquor licenses, you’re going to see Christian Nationalists accuse the municipal government of “operating under Sharia Law” in order to justify a state-level take over of the administration. These laws give them the necessary leverage.
If you’re implementing policies in defiance of the state’s majority party, they can point to your minority religion as the reason for your opposition. And they can galvanize the broader state religious majority to strip you of municipal self-rule, by claiming your religion says “be a bad person and hurt others”.
Any hard look at Abbott, Paxton, and Patrick suggest they aren’t theocrats nearly so much as they’re just fascists using any excuse to consolidate power. Texas is heavily conservative Christian, so they slam that peddle a bunch.
This push for “anti-Sharia Law” legislation is more of the same. An excuse to deprive municipalities of self-rule.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
Sure, you would see that. But they’d be wrong. Unless a muslim-majority community somehow changes the constitution to allow them to create laws on religious grounds. But it seems more likely the people to do that would be the evangelicals.
Of course republicans are gonna cry “sharia law” every time a muslim person participates in politics. That doesn’t make it accurate.
I’ma stop you right there. In this political system, minority parties don’t implement policy in defiance of the majority. Practically speaking, that just doesn’t happen, because it takes a majority vote to pass, and it has to pass two chambers of congress. And unless it passes with supermajority, it needs the executive’s signature. And even then it has to stand up to scrutiny by the (albeit corrupt) supreme court.
All that applies even at the state level, although some states have a different name for their highest court. But the process is the same.