Each faith community follows its own laws when it comes to prayers, marriage and divorce. We have extensive laws of prayer and food and no one would question for a moment our right to follow these laws. Where it gets more complicated is when we want to follow our laws to adjudicate a dispute. Since we are not a sovereign court, we can simply perform arbitration, at the agreement of the parties, if they wish. Jews have a long history of accommodation with local laws and while at the same time running courts for minor disputes within the country in which we live. One principle we always maintain is that ultimately, the law of the land is the law, and that we would not do anything which flew in the face of that idea. Can Shariah law be practiced in America? It can as long as it agrees to these principles. It cannot do anything in its courts which American law does not allow.

Another area of complication is when modern or local sensibilities conflict with traditional practices. Two such examples in Judaism are the practice of circumcision and ritual slaughter of animals to make them kosher. Since most people would say that circumcision is not only an option for all Americans but advisable, this has not been an issue here, but in some other countries this practice may be offensive. While most would say that our method of slaughtering animals is at least as humane as other methods, there are countries that have forbidden this and have thus made it very difficult for a Jew to live as a Jew. Is it the place of society to monitor the local practice of a religion? Are there some things which must be forbidden by a state, regardless of how sacred it may be to a particular religion? This is a very difficult question, but clearly each society will have its red lines. All cannot be done simply in the name of religion.

Many religions have grand messianic hopes for the whole world to follow its laws one day. Most people of faith, however, do distinguish between Messianic goals and practical life as we know it. While we have seen noxious mixes of religion and Jew hatred and support of terrorism in Mosques in the Middle East and elsewhere, and while there is a concern about women’s rights in Shariah law, I think a free society must accept the free practice of religion in its midst and simply deal with legal issues as they arise, rather than banning any one form of religious practice, orientation, or application of a faith to modern life.

As I struggle with this challenging question, first I am compelled to put a personal face on the issue, a face of a Muslim colleague and friend.  It is too easy to make the discussion abstract but knowing that unfolding events could have real consequences for our neighbors and friends keeps it “real” for me.  The topic evokes being on a narrow ridge and keeping a sense of balance. On one side of the ridge is the awareness and acknowledgment that cases of radicalization of Islam and other religions cannot be ignored or denied. To do so would be irresponsible.  On the other side of the ridge is the tendency to paint an entire group or religion with a broad brush, to forget the very essence of what it means to live in a democracy and the civil liberties that are inherent in our constitution.  Creating “the other” has historically had tragic results.

To find the balance on our narrow ridge requires that we find ways to engage in sometimes difficult dialogue. To ask ourselves if we even have the words to enter into these conversations. We need to think about how we deal with the unfamiliar including religious law, how we understand and respect religious attachments. To stay on our narrow ridge requires that we remember that the questions that arise about how religious minorities in our country define their own rules and laws is not new and not limited to Islam. Today to discuss sharia law in state legislatures is emotionally and politically charged. Is there actually any evidence that there is an effort underway to apply sharia law?
To stay on our narrow ridge requires that we think deeply about religious pluralism, that we affirm that someone can be Muslim and a Memphian, Muslim and and Tennessean, Muslim and a loyal American and to speak out if we sense we are falling off of the narrow ridge in either direction.  Keeping that personal face front and center is a beginning.

What concerns you about Islam in America? What concerns you about legislative efforts to question or restrict Islamic practices? What are the dangers of politicizing a particular faith or demonizing adherents of a particular faith?

There is legitimate reason to fear public and spectacular violence from some adherents of Islam. In November 2009, Nidal Malik Hasan, an American-born psychiatrist and Muslim, killed 13 people and wounded 29 others at Fort Hood, Texas. Following the attack, Al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn praised Hasan as a “pioneer, a trailblazer and a role-model” for other American Muslims.

In May of 2010, Faisal Shahzad, a Muslim immigrant from Pakistan, attempted to detonate a car bomb just off New York City’s Times Square. Shahzad admitted receiving financial and logistical support from the Taliban prior to his failed attempt. We’re six months from the tenth anniversary of a terrorist attack that killed over 3000 Americans. That attack was planned and executed by men who had unwavering faith that their actions were honoring Allah and his Prophet.

It is an undeniable fact that there are Muslims living in the U.S. and elsewhere who aim to do us harm–who would be pleased if America, not to mention Israel, were wiped off the face of the earth. We should expect our political and military leaders to protect us from such men.

Does that reality, however, justify what appear to be indiscriminate attempts to suppress Islam and its practices? Is it morally permissible to judge all adherents of a particular religion by the abhorrent behavior of a few of its members? Is that consistent with our pluralistic political values? We understand that there’s more than a little difference between your average church members at First Congo and Bellevue Baptist.  The same is true among Muslims; there are multiple and varied expressions of Islam. The citizen within me is wary of legislating against all Muslims.

The Christian in me has reservations, as well.

On one level, Islam rejects the things I hold most true and dear. The Qur’an denies the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the redemptive power of Jesus’ death, and the reality of His resurrection. On another level, I have more in common with faithful Muslims than I do with many of my fellow Americans. We both believe in a personal, transcendent God, in objective moral truth, and in a future judgment where all that is wrong in our world will be made right.

I have another selfish reason to speak against unwarranted suppression of Muslims: I, too, am a conservative religious person whose values are objectionable to some of my fellow citizens. All of us have an interest in protecting the individual and religious liberties of others–it’s a safeguard for our own faith and practice.

The practical answer to our question of the week? Prudence, balance, and intelligence–three values in short supply among many of our political leaders. We should vigorously reject religion-baiting as a means to political gain. We should be highly skeptical of legislation aimed at any particular religious community, opting rather to prohibit objective behaviors or practices that clearly foment violence. If law enforcement attention is directed at Muslims and their organizations, it must be within the strictures of our laws–and done with reasonable oversight and transparency. Those of us who reflexively reject all or nearly all use of police powers must face the fact that we have a small number of real enemies with murderous intent. If we together apply prudence, balance, and intelligence to these complex circumstances, perhaps we can protect our citizens without oppressing our neighbors.

What concerns you about Islam in America? What concerns you about legislative efforts to question or restrict Islamic practices? What are the dangers of politicizing a particular faith or demonizing adherents of a particular faith?

What are you afraid of?

Mark 5:15: When they came to Jesus, they saw the man who had been possessed by the legion of demons, sitting there, dressed and in his right mind; and they were afraid.

Many people in Memphis are afraid today.  Inner-city parents are afraid that their children will be shut out of a quality education with a Shelby County takeover of a board that seems they could care less about poor black children.  Suburban parents are afraid that Memphis City Schools will bring down the quality of Education in Shelby County with the unification of the two school systems.  Across America, conservative Christians are afraid that Al-Qaida will increase its terrorist presence in our country if we allow Muslims to continue to build places of worship.  Muslims are afraid they will be stereotyped as terrorists just because of their faith in Islam.

People fear what they don’t understand. What we need is some more understanding and to know that God loves us all.  Jesus is the great equalizer not polarizer.  He is about bringing healing to our area even though it may cost us something.

I want to start at the end of this story of Jesus and the demoniac.  There is a man who was formerly demon possessed, sitting there at peace, dressed (culturally acceptable), and in his right mind (educated and enlightened), but the people were afraid.  This is a very odd reaction to an exorcism.  In fact they begged Jesus to leave the region.  What were they afraid of or better yet what are we afraid of?

Prior to this exorcism this man lived in the tombs and was locked away from everybody else in a special district but the chains could no longer hold him.

Maybe they were afraid because this man wasn’t supposed to be in their region. They had designated his living in the graveyard.  I don’t think they even noticed his transformation only his reputation.  Could it be that we are more afraid of transformation and sharing our living space then we are of the actual person?

Before his trip to Mecca, Malcolm X thought all white men were devils because all he experienced as a child was the cruel racism of whites who murdered his father, taught him in school, and broke up his family. But when he made a Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca he discovered he had brothers with blond hair and the ‘bluest’ blue eyes. From Saudi Arabia on April 20, 1964, Malcolm wrote, “America needs to understand Islam, because this is the one religion that erases the race problem from its society.” He would later concede that, “the white man is not inherently evil, but America’s racist society influences him to act evilly.”

After the demoniac was liberated from his demons the people were afraid and asked Jesus to leave their region? Why? Could it be that they were angry because of the 2,000 pigs the demons ran into and died going over a cliff? They were afraid of economic implications.  They were afraid of the cost of transformation.  Many suburbanites in Memphis are afraid of the costs to educate poor black children in the inner city.  What they don’t understand is that it costs more to subdue poor blacks in prisons that resemble graveyards than it does to loose them through the exorcism of colonial mindsets and racist systems that are broken.  It costs more to incarcerate a prisoner for four years than it does to invest money in a child from kindergarten through college.

What are we afraid of? Change? The cost of change? The inconvenience of change? The readjustment of change? If we don’t change we die!

We fear what we don’t understand.  It’s time to get some understanding so we can sit down together, dress ourselves in righteousness and be in our right minds.