New Jersey Gov. Christie gets one right on the irrational fear of Sharia Law

By Richard K. Barry

Okay, I don't like Gov. Chris Christie. I've said before that I think he's a bully and I've been disgusted by his union bashing. But he is an effective politician and when he occasionally gets something right, it is a thing of beauty.

Such was the case when he defended the appointment of Sohail Mohammed to the state bench despite the fact that it angered some wackos on the right who seem to see the threat of Sharia Law wherever they look.

Christie called such concerns "crap." He went on to tell reporters that he rejected complaints that have been made that Sohail Mohammed is unfit to be a judge because he defended Muslim Americans who were wrongly arrested post- 9/11, saying that:

Ignorance is behind the criticism of Sohail Mohammed. He is an extraordinary American who is an outstanding lawyer and played an integral role in the post-September 11th period in building bridges between the Muslim American community in this state and law enforcement.

And in addressing frequently heard comments by conservatives who fear that Sharia Law will come to America he said:

Sharia Law has nothing to do with this at all, it's crap. The guy is an American citizen. Sharia Law business is crap and I'm tired of dealing with the crazies. It's just unnecessary to be accusing this guy of things just because of his religious background.

Too bad Christie hasn't jumped into the Republican presidential nomination race, as some thought or still think he might. It would be fun to see him take on Herman Cain who has made quite an effort to fire up his base by suggesting that we need to actively oppose Sharia Law coming to America because, apparently, that's going to be such a big problem for us.

Christie's politics aside, there really are potential Republican presidential nominees who know that in this go round you have to be more than a little insane, or pretend to be, to be seriously considered. If Christie got in, he'd be dealing with the crazies every day and that is something for which he seems to have little patience.

Here's the clip of Christie addressing the press on the issue:

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Living in pain is easy; dying with dignity is hard -- a review of How to Die in Oregon

By Edward Copeland

In 1994, Oregon became the first state to allow doctors to prescribe lethal doses of medication to the terminally ill so they wouldn't have to endure all sorts of crippling pain and the assorted loss of functions and powers that turned lives into something that could hardly be called living anymore. Tonight, HBO premieres the great documentary How to Die in Oregon, which personalizes the law, telling the stories of several Oregonians who weigh the option of whether or not to end their suffering. It's a powerful, emotional film that hits particularly close to home for me. It's also something everyone should see, especially in a time when compassion and rationality on a wide variety of issues seem to be in short supply.

Sometimes it's difficult when reviewing a movie — narrative or documentary — such as How to Die in Oregon that you know will deal with issues that are important to you. It makes critical distance harder to have. On the other hand, if you feel the film (or play or TV show for that matter) botches the presentation, you're liable to be harsher than you would be otherwise. Thankfully, that's not the case with How to Die in Oregon.

The documentary opens with a home movie of Roger Sagner, who became the 343rd person to have his suffering ended legally after the passage of Oregon's law. As his lethal dose of Seconal gets mixed for him, his volunteer from Compassion and Choices, the advocacy group that helps most people with their final act, asks him the two questions that they are required to: "Do you know you have the right to change your mind? and "What will this (drink) do to you?"

Sagner answers very quickly, "It will kill me and make me happy." He then gives his last words, first of love to his gathered family members, and then his final statement:

I thank the wisdom of the voters of the state of the Oregon for allowing me the honor of doing myself in on my own volition to solve my own problems.

What I wouldn't give if the wisdom of Oregon voters could somehow be bottled and slipped into the entire country's water supply, since we have a short supply of rational-thinking adults. Oregon also legalized medical marijuana, which has shown great progress in easing the pain for people such as myself who have multiple sclerosis, but then again 15 other states and the District of Columbia have joined Oregon on that law. Unfortunately, I'm stuck in a state which has a governor and legislature doing its damnedest to drag us back to the 19th century, prior to its and which on the last General Election ballot had as a priority a state question making sure that no state judge used Sharia law in making rulings.

When Oregon voters approved its Death With Dignity law, only the countries of Switzerland and the Netherlands had legalized the practice. Since then, forward-thinking voters in Washington state and Montana also have approved such laws. Worldwide, Luxembourg is the only country to legalize it since. Worldwide, debates go on everywhere, but they always run into the same opposition, usually from churches and the religious, who most of all should watch How to Die in Oregon and maybe they'd understand this is about compassion — and isn't compassion a basic tenet of most religions?

The film was directed, produced and photographed by Peter D. Richardson and won the Grand Jury Prize for Documentaries at this year's Sundance Film Festival. I don't know its competition, but How to Die in Oregon definitely proves award-worthy. Richardson establishes an amazingly intimate rapport with the film's interview subjects. His main focus stays with a 54-year-old woman named Cody Curtis who successfully beats liver cancer once only to have it return stronger and with a six-month death sentence attached, making Curtis face the idea of taking the lethal dose when the cancer returns.

Given an expiration date and knowing what kind of pain she faces, Cody decides that she won't let cancer and doctors control what remains of her life and she sets a date to take the lethal dose, which gives her an unexpected sort of freedom, even though her entire family isn't happy about it, especially her son Thomas, who asks his mom if she won't struggle for herself, can't she struggle a little for him?

Thomas moves past that, but that's what prevents laws such as Oregon's from being the law everywhere — friends and family, partly out of love but out of selfishness as well — can't bring themselves to accept the idea of their parent or child or whomever choosing to die, even when they witness the amount of pain that person goes through for long periods of time and know deep inside that it only get worse and that person's life will not end well under any scenario.

Before we meet Cody, the film introduces us to Sue Potter, a seven-year volunteer for Compassion and Choices and one of the group's most active. We see her make one of her first stops to a man lying in be, obviously having a particularly bad day. Potter explains to him that she's there to talk with him because he's contacted the group about ending his life.

"End my life? I'm already in life," he tells her. "I've already ended life. I want to exit life."

Potter explains what it's like for people who get to these conditions. "These people have lost so much control and they'll tell us repeatedly that they want the medicine for control."

The actual process requires filling out a form with the extremely long title REQUEST FOR MEDICINE TO END MY LIFE IN A HUMANE AND DIGNIFIED MATTER. It requires the signatures of two witnesses attesting that the person seeking the lethal dose is of sound mind.

As Cody Curtis says at one point in the documentary about having the lethal prescription in her house, should she need it:

It's very comforting to know they're here. I don't have to go through any more bureaucracy... They're here when I decide... It's not like when I'm in the hospital and they tell you, "You have to have another CAT Scan" or "We're taking you down for another procedure." It's my choice when to take them and whether to take them. My volunteer has told me I'll know and I'll just have to trust her on that. I'll know when my life isn't worth living anymore.

While the film keeps Curtis as its center, it has plenty of time for sidetrips to other dying people, interview subjects such as Derek Humphry, author of the once controversial book Final Exit, as well as Seattle's Nancy Niedzielski who leads the campaign for a similar law in Washington.

Niedzielski's story really illustrates the need for such laws. Her husband Randy was diagnosed with brain cancer. Nothing doctors could give him would alleviate the pain and the condition got so bad sometimes his eyes would literally pop out of their sockets. Randy finally decided to end treatment, since none of it was going to save his life or ease his pain. He went to a hospice and asked if they could help him do what they could to end his life quickly, but the hospice workers said they couldn't because that was illegal in the state of Washington. Randy told them that he would move to Oregon so he could take advantage of the Death With Dignity law, only he was told that he was so weak and near death by then that he wouldn't survive long enough to establish Oregon residency, a requirement of the law. His last request was that his wife change Washington's law and she helped lead the campaign for two years until its passage in 2008.

You get to see the usual opposition as when Nancy serves on a phone bank and gets an opponent of the law's passage and actually challenges the caller on what so many people don't seem to understand on any issue: They are free to think it's wrong, but why do they think their belief should be imposed on everyone else? Why is the idea of choice (and I'm not using it in terms of the abortion debate here) so revolting to them? You also see Nancy interviewed for a radio program where the host calls what she is seeking "assisted suicide," a term which offends Nancy and most others who support Death With Dignity. Nancy tells him that suicide is when someone who is otherwise healthy and would live for many more years decides to end his or her life because he or she is clinically depressed. Unfortunately, in the 47 states that don't have this law, that's how they treat people who are in chronic pain: as if they are just depressed and need shrinks and medication, like a teenage boy whose girlfriend just dumped him.

It also has something to do with what you hear in passing in a segment that plays excepts of the Washington debate on talk radio where a man talks about having to be placed in long-term care and how it's eating up his inheritance. Not that I ever had a fortune in savings, but I've watched it evaporate thanks to my medical costs. It doesn't help that my sole income is Social Security Disability Insurance and for two years running, Social Security recipients have been denied cost-of-living increases under the argument that the rate of inflation hasn't been high enough to justify it. Of course, this hasn't prevented Congress from giving themselves cost-of-living hikes to their six-figure salaries both of those years.

Then there is Medicare. Part A the "hospital part" is free, but if I wanted Part B, I would have to pay a premium which would be deducted from my meager Social Security check. On top of that, one of my doctors won't take Medicare patients and others are threatening not to because of talk that their fees might be reduced. Therefore, I didn't take Part B, staying on the health insurance that was funded by my employer who still considers me an employee on long-term disability, even though I receive no salary. The government tries to blackmail you into taking Part B, telling you that for each year you don't sign up, the premium will increase a certain percentage for every year you didn't. As far the increasing number of doctors who refuse Medicare patients, Lawrence O'Donnell pointed out last week that in 1960, before Medicare, the average family doctor's salary was $10,000. Just four years after Medicare's enactment, that average had increased to $24,000. Today, that average is something around $130,000 a year. For specialists, it's about $333,000 a year. And these poor babies fear cuts. By the way, Part A, the "hospital part" only covers you if you are admitted to a hospital. If you have outpatient procedures at a hospital or are taken to an emergency room at a hospital, that doesn't count. That's Part B.

The entire health-care industry, with the government as co-conspirators, opposes laws such as Death With Dignity because they want to bleed everyone dry first. The system for people who are chronically ill but not terminal actually is set up so that you really can't get financial help unless you are broke first. That's what they want: It's how the system is set up. Pardon my digression. I'm writing this to praise a wonderful documentary on an important topic.

Oregon isn't immune from this either. How to Die in Oregon also tells the infuriating story of Randy Stroup, a 53-year-old uninsured man diagnosed with prostate cancer who had to depend on the Oregon Health Plan. After his first treatment, his doctor recommended stronger chemotherapy and the health plan sent him a letter denying the treatment, but giving him a list of other options, including the Death With Dignity Act. This was a man who wasn't terminal and could be saved.

"To think they'd put a price tag on my life," Stroup said, "by saying they'd pay to kill me but they wouldn't pay to help me." Sounds very reminiscent of when Arizona recently cut their program for people awaiting transplants. One way or the other, it all comes down to money in the end.

The center of How to Die in Oregon and much of its power belongs to Cody Curtis' story. After setting a date to take the medication, she find a happiness and freedom. Instead of everything revolving around her impending death, it becomes about life again and she ends up not taking it on the date she set and actually living beyond the six months she was told and with few signs of the pain she feared. It's as if she's been given a gift and gets more time with her husband and children, but eventually the cancer does kick in with its pain and complications. As she had said before after her brush with the disease, it's a relief to know the medication already is there in her house when she needs it and it's up to her to choose when that time is. Director Richardson's choice in filming the conclusion of Cody's story proves both perfect for the documentary and for Cody as well.

From beginning to end, Richardson's compelling documentary takes you on an emotional roller coaster. It would have been easy to turn How to Die in Oregon into a propaganda piece supporting Death With Dignity laws, but he just lets his subjects talk and the audience has the experience. No embellishment is necessary.

How to Die in Oregon premieres on HBO tonight at 8 p.m. Eastern/Pacific and 7 p.m. Central. Truly, it should not be missed. 

(Cross-posted at Edward Copeland on Film.)

Passion play

By Capt. Fogg

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

___________

If you managed to get through grade school, you've read this many times, but it never seems to influence the way Americans act or feel: a syndrome that seems more influenced by mob psychology and sectarian chauvinism than anything else. Of course, it's long been this way and we've long been a xenophobic and gullible nation, but with the advent of round-the-clock swineherds like Fox News, the grunting and squealing of feral-hog America is drowning out the voice of our founding fathers and of decent men and women everywhere. 

[E]ven if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service. (Ben Franklin) 

The same folks who want to persecute Muslims for their religion and prohibit the free exercise thereof will assert, without twitching their nostrils at the smell of hypocrisy, that this is a Christian nation and that Christian laws, whatever they might be, supersede our national laws about abortion, birth control, spending government funds on Christian activities, and browbeating children into theological submission. It's not okay that a Muslim man doesn't want to drink alcohol or a Jew doesn't want to eat pork, but it's fine that a Christian pharmacist refuses to dispense condoms. Damn the Constitution, we're a Christian nation. The laws of other religions need not apply, and, in fact, although there is no chance whatever that the United States will adopt the Qur'an as a replacement for the Constitution and its body of laws, it's not enough for the grunting pigs of God who would like to make the free exercise of Islam illegal. 

He was despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. (Isaiah 53:3) 

The latest crusade seems to be about portraying every comment by every Muslim as an example of Sharia, from a cabby in Detroit asking that he not be forced to transport alcohol to someone praying in Arabic in front of the White House. According to one witness, he was asking for a blessing on those "Christians" who seemed oblivious to the staggering irony of a mob mocking and cursing a bearded man, bent in prayer, forgiving them for persecuting him. None of this has anything to do with any effort to replace our laws and courts with Islamic laws or Islamic judges, nor can it since no effort exists. As to the rules of private observance, let's let only Christians do that! The only credible attempt of theocratic pretenders to the throne is of course by self-styled Christians, as the porcine squeals of the glossolalians Palin and Huckabee would prove. 

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen... (George Washington) 

Perhaps it's fortunate that such people are stupid enough to hoist themselves with their own petty petards. You'll recall, and perhaps with a smile, Oklahoma's attempt to thwart the non-existent Islamic takeover by attempting a tin-foil-hat law banning all religious commands -- which in effect banned the Jewish commandments they had been trying to insert into American life, but we can't afford to depend on their congenital stupidity when so much is at stake. And yes, it takes a stupid man to think that somehow Americans would decide to write Sharia or Islamic tribal practices into American law in open defiance of the Constitution or that the tiny percentage of Muslim Americans would somehow magically or accidentally do it by themselves.

The courts have decisively ruled that the establishment and free exercise clauses forbid the federal and state governments to prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion or atheism. The Torah, the Bible, the Qur'an, the Gita, the works of Nietzsche: state or federal government may not adopt any of them as preferable, much less mandatory. But we're a little people, a silly people -- greedy, barbarous, and cruel people, if I might borrow from T.E. Lawrence -- and a cowardly, ignorant, and hateful people as well. "Conservative" legislators continue and will persist in thriving on our traditional sins by inventing threats that must be countered by measures to accelerate our inexorable descent into loserhood. They'll continue to demonize the way their predecessors demonized German, Irish, Italian, Mexican, African, Catholic, Jewish, Chinese, and Indian immigrants, and history will continue to prove them wrong.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Craziest Republican of the Day: Allen West

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Think Progress:

Rep. Allen West (R-FL), a newly-elected member who has loudly scapegoated Muslims and campaigned on a promise to oppose religious diversity, appeared on Frank Gaffney's radio program last week. Gaffney, who routinely says that Obama is both a secret Muslim and a member of the "Muslim Brotherhood," asked West about how the new Republican Congress plans to "take on Sharia as the enemy threat doctrine?"

West said that, although he has not spoken with all of the new members, he hoped that Congress would focus on the "infiltration of the Sharia practice into all of our operating systems in our country as well as across Western civilization." He explained that targeting Sharia should be part of America's "national security strategy" and that a response to Sharia would somehow include "tailor[ing]" American "security systems, our political systems, economic systems, our cultural and educational systems, so that we can thwart this."

Thwart what? A completely fabricated threat?

(Seriously, what would George Orwell make of this? It's like we're in the world of 1984, with the totalitarian state essentially sustaining itself on conspiracy theories designed to distract the citizenry into targeting whatever Other the state claims is the enemy. Let's call it Republican Bolshevism.) 

Simply put, there is no Sharia threat to American society. Muslims are not trying to impose Sharia law on America, nor even in their own communities.

Indeed, if there's a danger of the imposition of intolerant and bloodthirsty theocratic rule in America today, it comes not from Muslims (the vast majority of whom accept and abide by the American legal system, not a fundamentalist Islamic system, and are as fully of separating their faith from secular law as any Christian or Jew) but from those on the right (including West) who seek to impose Christian fundamentalism (akin to Islamic fundamentalism) on the country, if not on the rest of the world.

There is the real danger to the Constitution and to the American way of life, not Muslims, a distinct minority that, made up mostly of new Americans, wants only to fit in and peacefully live the American Dream. 

So what is this, then? Does West really believe that the threat is real?

Yes, maybe so. While there is a good deal of political cynicism and manipulation on the right, I suspect that many conservatives really do believe their own propaganda.

But this is bigotry, plain and simple, with Muslims targeted as the Other (just as undocumented Mexicans so often are). It's the politics of division, of discrimination, of hate. And it's an extremely potent force in today's America, with the economy struggling, with the world changing, with America's future uncertain.

History, of course, is littered with the remains of such official, state-sanctioned bigotry, not to mention with the bodies of those who have died as a result of it, and the Republicans, taking over the House, are making it their own as they seek to feed, and capitalize electorally on, the culture of fear.

We are in the midst of an ugly chapter in American history, and the ugliness is only going to get worse.

Threats and Rumors of Threat

by Peter Henne

The world seems a threatening place. The pre-election terror plot revealed al-Qaeda (AQ) continues its attempts to strike US and Western targets. A series of horrendous attacks occurred in the past week, including the massacre of Iraqi Christians and two suicide bombings of Muslim religious sites in Pakistan. And last Tuesday, voters in Oklahoma banned the application of sharia in the state's courts. Some on the right may claim these are examples of, and responses to, the spread of "radical Islam" throughout the world. Others might suggest xenophobia among some Americans is leading to both a hostile environment for American Muslims and the exaggeration of terrorist threats. I would offer the alternative explanation: AQ and its allies represent a continuing threat to the United States, which we ignore at our peril. At the same time, American Muslims are an integral part of our society, and the overwhelming majority of them do not share AQ's beliefs. Demonizing them serves only to distract us from the true danger, redirecting our energies into frivolous debates and manufactured fears.

Numerous details have emerged about the recent terror plot. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) appears to have disguised bombs as electronic appliances and mailed these to the United States, intending to either destroy the cargo planes or the synagogues to which they were addressed. Saudi intelligence or the diligence of airline screeners led to the bombs being discovered.

I have long believed incidents like this pose a threat to the United States, but one that must be placed in context . The bombs may have caused little damage if placed in the middle of the cargo area, but if they were by the planes' skin an explosion could have caused a crash. The resultant disruption of global air cargo network would have significant economic ramifications. Yet, America's economy and society are resilient enough to survive the effects of even several terrorist attacks. And the threat AQ poses is one of a shadowy network, rather than an ever-present anti-American insurgency.

The sharia ban, however, is different. At some point anti-Muslim sentiment in America (or at least media coverage of it) increased. This manifested itself in the Park51 controversy, and the vandalism of mosques around the country. And it has culminated in Oklahoma's attempt to head off a move to impose sharia by the state's Muslims (who make up less than 1 percent of the population).

The fear some Americans have of Islam is completely unfounded. The Park51 issue involves a moderate Islamic cleric's cultural center, with most of the controversy due to media manipulation. And there is little indication Sharia will be imposed here anytime soon. There have been scattered incidents of judges pointing to sharia to hand out unfair sentences, but these decisions have mostly been overturned. And while Muslim Americans tend to be very religious, they are better off economically and more integrated socially than Muslims in Europe.

I think it is safe to say there is no wide-ranging conspiracy to Islamize America. Yet, too often anti-Muslim hysteria and concerns over terrorism are linked in the public discourse: by those with the anti-Muslim attitudes, of course, but also by their critics who at times lump terrorism in with the manufactured "Islamic threat." This would be a mistake, as dismissing terrorist threats because of the lies and exaggerations of a few Americans would be almost as bad as denying the diversity and moderation of Muslim Americans because of the radicalism of a tiny minority.

So where does this leave us? One takeaway is that Americans must be sure to appreciate the threat we face from terrorism; it is unlikely, though, that we will experience a down-playing of terrorism anytime soon. Instead, it may be more important to emphasize that rejecting anti-Muslim attitudes is not the same as ignoring AQ and its minions. That is, we can be tough on terrorism and still accept religious diversity.

How? First, by doing exactly what the Obama Administration is doing: increasing counter-terrorism activities while trying to engage with Muslim publics. It also involves emphasizing the extent to which anti-Muslim attitudes increase the terrorist threat.

This partly involves America's image; more important, though, is the effect they have on our political debates. We should be discussing how to exert leverage over Pakistan to crack down on extremists, what the best ways are to use drone strikes while minimizing civilian casualties, and what level of airline security is enough to prevent terrorist attacks. Instead we are stuck in facile debates about whether an Islamic cultural center is too close to Ground Zero and how likely a pro-sharia movement will be among American Muslims. The anti-Muslim animus we are experiencing may only be rumors of threat, but that is enough to derail public discourse and undermine our ability to defend America.

(Cross-posted from The Huffington Post)

Newt Gingrich slams Sebelius, distorts reality, descends into madness

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Speaking at the right-wing Values Voters Summit (because, of course, greed and bigotry are values, too*) in Washington yesterday, Newt Gingrich said that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius should be removed from office, with a new Republican Congress "zeroing out her office," for "behaving exactly in the spirit of the Soviet tyranny" and for "represent[ing] left-wing thought police," both with respect to health-care reform.

Of course, she did and is nothing of the kind. What she wrote, in a letter to the insurance industry, is that the federal government "will not tolerate unjustified rate hikes." America's Health Insurance Plans, or AHIP, contends that "Obamacare" is forcing them to raise premiums. In response, Sebelius wrote that that is simply not true, that "any potential premium impact" would be "marginal."

Gingrich, as you might expect, takes the insurance industry at its word. Needless to say, that is a stupid thing to do. The industry wants to maximize its profits and will do and say whatever it takes to do so. But it is also stupid to suggest that Sebelius is acting like a Soviet tyrant (and speaking for some "left-wing thought police" by challenging the very industry that wants to harm consumers by charging them more and blaming Obama. Gingrich is supposed to be a historian, is he not? He is supposed to be one of the smarter conservatives out there -- at least, that is what the media would have us believe, given how much respect and airtime they give him. But he clearly lacks any genuine appreciation for history -- history to him is the just past filtered through his partisan and ideological prisms -- and, once again, we see that neither he nor anything he says should be taken seriously.

Also in his address, Gingrich said that he is "totally opposed to any effort to impose sharia on the United States." But who exactly is talking about imposing fundamentalist Islamic law on America? Where is the evidence? Where is it happening? It isn't. This is fearmongering pure and simple, projected through those partisan and ideological prisms, and just the sort of anti-Muslim bigotry we've come to expect from Gingrich. (While he's talking specifically about sharia, the message is really that Muslims are not to be trusted, that Islam is essentially anti-American, and that all Muslims, backed by liberals/progressives/Democrats, are jihadists seeking to undo the Constitution and take over the country.)

Gingrich is moving further and further away from reality -- and he was never all that close to it to begin with. In his partisan and ideological fervor, he has become a spinner of lies and smears and exaggerations, willing, as ever, to traffic in utter nonsense, running his mouth off without anything to back up what he says, simply to try to score political points by playing on popular ignorance and fear, and to keep himself in the news, where he continues to get the media's attention for saying crazier and crazier things, and to maintain himself as a key player in conservative circles, which cheer harder the crazier and crazier things get. Like the rest of the right side of the political spectrum, he's descending ever more rapidly into madness.

**********

* Tweeted our good friend (and Reaction editor) Carol Gee yesterday, on the VVS: "Reminder: Repubs can have no exclusive claim to be 'values voters.' Dem voters value ideas like creativity, diversity, veracity, lucidity." Exactly.

"Sharia" and American secularism

by Peter Henne

It's not often that academic issues like the relationship between Islamic thought and contemporary politics become relevant. So I was excited to see the Washington Post's story on the nature of sharia. This is connected to the Park51 debate, although the question of whether Muslims must follow sharia like an instruction book--and what this means for American society--periodically arises. The last time was an op-ed by Edward Luttwak claiming President Obama is a Muslim under Islamic law, and that all Muslims will be compelled to oppose him as an apostate.

The story includes blurbs by several experts--including Gallup's Dalia Mogahed--dispelling myths about sharia's totalizing influence over Muslims. And they are right; anyone who has spent even a semester studying Islam will have learned that sharia is not a fixed set of laws, but a set of principles drawn from diverse sources and about which there is much disagreement. Moreover, even if sharia does contain guidelines for Muslims, this does not mean all Muslims will follow it in their daily lives; Muslims are no more likely than Christians to check with their Scriptures before making a decision. This was covered well in the responses to Luttwak's piece.

The renowned Islamic scholar Olivier Roy--in his classic The Failure of Political Islam--describes sharia as characterized by both autonomy and incompleteness. That is, it exists independently of power structures but is constantly contested. The specific application of sharia in any context is based on contingent political, economic and societal factors, not any inherent aspect of Islam. Saying that sharia will lead Muslims in America to literally follow all aspects of their religious writings would be the same as arguing that medieval Catholic Canon Law not only represents all of Christianity, but drives the behavior of contemporary Catholics.

Of course, this does not address the question of what the effects may be of the infusion of Muslim values--whatever form they take--into American politics and civil society. This is a question that is worth pondering; we just need to ponder over the right facts.

Off with his hair!

By Capt. Fogg


Yes, it's hard to get behind anything the government of Iran does: stoning people to death, building nuclear weapons and all that, but to give credit where it's due, they do have the same lack of tolerance for certain hairstyles that I do and when it comes to demonstrating intolerance, Iran has few equals.

Yes, I'm all for freedom of expression, but there are limits and the mullet haircut is beyond that limit. As I'm concerned, ponytails on anyone over 60 and greasy spikes or Mohawks on anyone of any age are an abomination unto the Lord. So yes, I'd be right at home in the Islamic Republic and they certainly agree with me over there about what needs to be stomped out if the human race is to avoid divine retribution. Police in Iran can lop off that ponytail and that mullet can earn you jail time -- and rightly so. As I said, there are limits.

Of course, being a land of compassionate conservatism, Iran has provided an illustrated compendium of hairstyles that, according to Jaleh Khodayar, the man in charge of the government- backed Modesty and Veil Festival, are acceptable in light of "Iranians' complexion, culture and religion, and Islamic law." See for yourself:



(Cross posted from Human Voices)