Replies

If the establishment of Sharia as the civil law is a violation of the free exercise clause, then you really need to go back and read Moore's words. The imposition of laws that prohibit the exercise of other faiths, however, would clearly constitute a violation of the free exercise clause. But Sharia provisions such as those allowing up to four wives would not violate the free exercise clause, as they do not mandate that anyone do so. Nor would a law providing for amputation as punishment for a crime, when those same crimes are crimes under the laws of other faiths. Adoption of Sharia would clearly, however, be an establishment of religion.

As for the 'committee' approach, again - some of their activities would infringe on free exercise, but the very existence of such an entity is an establishment of religion.

Do you disagree that government empowered thugs running the streets demanding that women wear burquas because Allah [supposedly] says so would be an establishment of religion?

Now we're travelling into a whole new territory - that of laws that are inspired by religious beliefs. I have absolutely no use for burqa laws, but they're not violations of the first amendment. If that were the case, then our own Bill of Rights would be in violation, since the Founders themselves clearly stated that our rights are "endowed by [our] Creator". Is that not a religious belief?

"But Sharia provisions such as those allowing up to four wives would not violate the free exercise clause, as they do not mandate that anyone do so. "

Yes.

Consider the alternative: Making polygamy *legal* is a terrible thing if its done under Sharia? And yet the US Supreme Court has comes so close to calling such behavior a fundamental human right anyway (i mean gay sex, polygamy, what's the difference?).
SO if Gray Davis and NAMBLA and the Wiccan league and HumanistsForFreeSex got together and passed a law saying any group of N people could get married together, what is constitutionally wrong with that?

And so what you can do on the basis of materialist, secular belief you *cant* do on the basis of a monotheistic religious belief? Why? Why is one motivation held to a different standard? Why is monotheism suppressed in such a way?

The point you really need to make is: What does Sharia *forbid* that specifically violates the 1st Amendment?
I'll tell you what - Blasphemy. In Pakistan, they have given the death penalty to people who "blaspheme" Mohammed.

Sharia is evil NOT because it imposes nutty clothing restrictions, although any sensible modern country would reject such laws, it is EVIL precisely because it violates the Freedom of Conscience and Free Excercise of Religion of non-believers in Islam.

Let's put it another way:
If the State of Alabama decided to pass a law Enforcing the Ten Commandments. Lying, stealing, honoring Ma and Pa, etc., anything that didnt violate free speech and free exercise and other rights would be *acceptable*. But the part about obeying God, not taking his name in vain, and glorifying Him on Sabbath - clear 1st Amendment violation.

To deny the right of legislators to have religious motivation is to deny them *their* rights of democracy and representation, etc. YOu need to look at *what* they do , not *why* they do it.

"Do you disagree that government empowered thugs running the streets demanding that women wear burquas ..."

We have government empowered thugs demanding that women dont show their boobs in public. Just another line-drawing.

"because Allah [supposedly] says so would be an establishment of religion? "

Yes, I disagree.

Why should motivation matter? Separate the act from the motivation. What if the secular humanists decide to impose the "Burqua" rule -- is *that* okay? What if Congress was bribed by burqua manufacturers to pass the law, with NO religious intent at all. Does it suddenly make it *okay*, just because the intent was secular?

Again, the Burqua thing is nutty and could be considered violating 1st amendment rights simply becaus it restrict 'free expression' so much, but BY ITSELF it is not an 'establishment' of religion. JMHO.