Saturday, December 3, 2016   

  Home     About     Guest Editorials     Advertise     Blog     Site Map     Links     Contact      Subscribe RSS      Subscribe Email  
Home » General

Santorum wants to impose ‘Judeo-Christian Sharia’

11 January 2012 General 48 Comments Email This Post Email This Post

By Dean Obeidallah, Special to CNN

CNN Editor’s note: Dean Obeidallah is a comedian who has appeared on Comedy Central’s “Axis of Evil” special, ABC’s “The View,” CNN’s “What the Week” and HLN’s “The Joy Behar Show.” He is executive producer of the annual New York Arab-American Comedy Festival and the Amman Stand Up Comedy Festival. Follow him on Twitter.

(CNN) – There are two Rick Santorums: The first one I might not agree with, but the second one truly scares me.

“Santorum One” pushes for less government regulation for corporations and shrinking the federal government. You may or may not agree with these positions, but they are both mainstream conservative fare.

Then there’s “Santorum Two.” This Santorum wants to impose conservative Christian law upon America. Am I being hyperbolic or overly dramatic with this statement? I wish I were, but I’m not.

Plainly put, Rick Santorum wants to convert our current legal system into one that requires our laws to be in agreement with religious law, not unlike what the Taliban want to do in Afghanistan.

Santorum is not hiding this. The only reason you may not be aware of it is because up until his recent surge in the polls, the media were ignoring him. However, “Santorum Two” was out there telling anyone who would listen.

He told a crowd at a November campaign stop in Iowa in no uncertain terms, “our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God’s law.”

On Thanksgiving Day at an Iowa candidates’ forum, he reiterated: “We have civil laws, but our civil laws have to comport with the higher law.”

Yes, that means exactly what you think it does: Santorum believes that each and every one of our government’s laws must match God’s law, warning that “as long as there is a discordance between the two, there will be agitation.” I’m not exactly sure what “agitation” means in this context, but I think it’s a code word for something much worse than acid reflux.

And as an aside, when Santorum says “God,” he means “not any god (but) the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” So, if your god differs from Rick’s, your god’s views will be ignored, just like the father is on “Keeping Up with the Kardashians.”

Some of you might be asking: How far will “Santorum Two” take this? It’s not like he’s going to base public policy decisions on Bible passages, right?

Well, here’s what Santorum had to say just last week when asked about his opposition to gay marriage: “We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. … And those truths don’t change just because people’s attitudes may change.”

Santorum could not be more unambiguous: His policy decisions will be based on “biblical truths,” and as he noted, these “truths” will not change regardless of whether public opinion has evolved since the time the Bible was written thousands of years ago.

Imagine if either of the two Muslim members of Congress declared their support for a proposed American law based on verses from the Quran. The outcry would be deafening, especially from people like Santorum.

One of the great ironies is that Santorum has been a leader in sounding alarm bells that Muslims want to impose Islamic law — called Sharia law — upon non-Muslims in America. While Santorum fails to offer even a scintilla of credible evidence to support this claim, he continually warns about the “creeping” influence of Muslim law.

Santorum’s fundamental problem with Sharia law is that it’s “not just a religious code. It is also a governmental code. It happens to be both religious in nature and origin, but it is a civil code.”

Consequently, under the Sharia system, the civil laws of the land must comport with God’s law. Now, where did I hear about someone wanting to impose only laws that agree with God’s law in America?

So, what type of nation might the United States be under Rick Santorum’s Sharia law?

1. Rape victims would be forced to give birth to the rapist’s child. Santorum has stated that his religious beliefs dictate that life begins at conception, and as a result, rape victims would be sentenced to carrying the child of the rapist for nine months.

2. Gay marriages would be annulled. Santorum recently declaredthat not only does he oppose gay marriages, but he supports a federal constitutional amendment that would ban them, invalidating all previous gay marriages that have legally been sanctioned by states and thus callously destroying marriages and thrusting families into chaos.

3. Santorum would ban all federal funding for birth control and would not oppose any state that wanted to pass laws making birth control illegal.

4. No porn! I’m not kidding. Santorum signed “The Marriage Vow”pledge (PDF) authored by the Family Leader organization, under which he swears to oppose pornography. I think many would agree that alone should disqualify him from being president.

To me, “Santorum Two” truly poses an existential threat to the separation of church and state, one of the bedrock principles of our nation since its inception. Not only did Thomas Jefferson speak of the need to create “a wall of separation between church and state,” so did Santorum’s idol, Ronald Reagan, who succinctly stated, “church and state are, and must remain, separate.”

While there may be millions of Americans who in their heart agree with the views of “Santorum Two,” it is my hope they will reject any attempts to move America closer to a becoming the Afghanistan of the Western Hemisphere.

Original post: Santorum wants to impose ‘Judeo-Christian Sharia’

Share/Bookmark




48 Comments »

  1. That’s exactly what he’s trying to do.

  2. Over my dead body.

  3. Is that hypocritical or what? Christian sharia versus Islamic sharia versus good old separation of church and state like our astute forefathers knew to be the best. We don’t live in a theocracy for some good reasons. Why don’t these delusional theocrats study some American history before they run for office? Separation of church and state is our constitutional right.

  4. Crusade= good. Jihad= bad. Christian theocracy = good. Sharia = bad. It’s all so simple to a simple mind.

  5. Spanish Inquisition, anyone?

  6. I call him a fundamental christianhadist :D

  7. I like Christine Gates LeGrant’s post :-)

    Religion = bad… period :-P

  8. > Santorum is a Bug-Wit Thug :)

  9. Would someone please show this sad excuse of a public servant a copy of the First Amendment about the establishment of religion by the government – it simply isn’t allowed . . . What is he doing in Congress, much less running for President when he doesn’t even grasp the simple concept of separation of church and state???

  10. Separation of church and state isn’t technically in the Constitution, strictly speaking. It only says that Congress shall not establish any religion above any others. That said, what Santorum is proposing is most definitely unconstitutional and wacko. It proves what I’ve always though, however, that this false outrage over a non-existent plot by Muslims to implement Sharia Law in the United States is driven by the need to defeat any competition.

  11. Hardly over dramatic! Spot on, from my view!

  12. If anyone thinks that Jewish Law is not already enshrined in the civil law here, they would do well to examine the statute books of New York State,. There are laws on Kosher there, and there are laws on how to obtain a GET (look it up) there. This isn’t picking on the Jews; it’s simply pointing out a double standard. NO faith’s religious laws should ever me enshrined in the civil law of any jurisdiction.

  13. Who cares? Not many, if the NH results are any indication. Santorum is toast.

  14. @Barry . . .I am curious as to where to “look it up”. . . can you supply a link?

  15. Separation of Church and State is very plainly in the Constitution:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”: That’s freedom FROM religion, especially in the extremely dangerous officially sanctioned sense.

    “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”: Thats freedom OF religion, protecting the private practice of any religion and protecting it from government sanction of censure.

    Thomas Jefferson understood it, so I’m not sure why we won’t: “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

    Madison “got it,” too: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/madison_livingston.html

    As did John Adams in the Treaty of Tripoli: “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 tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

    Of course, all that I just posted requires though, reading, and study, and this is Santorum we’re talking about, isn’t it?

  16. I guess the new Talibamerican. A sharia law Christian type. Well lets have a Islamic Sharia Law in one part of the US and one of theirs on the other side. We can do some Tests and effects after a period of time. The Islamic Law will be appreciated.

  17. I sometimes make the argument to paranoid people like Santorum that perhaps there are many Muslim immigrants that come to America to get away from harsh laws in their home country. I’d like to ask Muslims who read this: Is there any truth to my assumption?

  18. that is ri dm diculous!

  19. I like it that when muslims are presented with a mirror image of their own obsession they scream oo! ow!

    There is a set of people tired of what has been going on in the past 30 years – how did we get to the point of naked gay parades – and they want to do what Hungary just did I suppose.

  20. here he comes, wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.

  21. No, you’re spot on. He’s a Christian Salafist.

  22. Also, someone needs to remind Santorum that the God of Islam is the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”

  23. No religious law of anykind should be imposed on anyone in this country. That is what the founding fathers meant by seperation of Church and state. Very bad. That is why we left England and settled America.

  24. No religious law of anykind should be imposed on anyone in this country. That is what the founding fathers meant by seperation of Church and state. Very bad. That is why we left England and settled America.

  25. So when someone prints that Muslims want to impose Sharia Law, and that’s bad. But when it’s Christians, that’s fine with you? Isn’t that hypocritical? What’s next? Romney wants to impose Mormon Jihad?

  26. So when someone prints that Muslims want to impose Sharia Law, and that’s bad. But when it’s Christians, that’s fine with you? Isn’t that hypocritical? What’s next? Romney wants to impose Mormon Jihad?

  27. @ Shaun Lockett and Christine Gates Le Grant you two summed it up!

  28. @ Shaun Lockett and Christine Gates Le Grant you two summed it up!

  29. This is what happens when elected officials try to roll their religion into public policy…..on the sneak tip.

    It’s no surprise that his suggestion & bigotry drew applause….considering the audience.

  30. Crap!

  31. Well we like it or not, A promise is a promise, a time will come when Islam will be all over the world. Could be Centuries from now, but believe me it will happen.

  32. Even Jesus peace be upon him will break the cross when he comes back to earth and people will be worshiping Allah alone. The one Christians call the father! Does it make sense anon?

  33. “Imagine if either of the two Muslim members of Congress declared their support for a proposed American law based on verses from the Quran. The outcry would be deafening, especially from people like Santorum.”

  34. Salim, you are welcome to believe whatever you wish. You are possibly an MB sharia enthusiast. If so, please go where they are implementing it.

    Why is there this gap between what muslims are actually doing and what they think they are doing?

    As before, the non muslim nations will throw them off and bolt the gates to muslim immigration before muslims start shooting the local inhabitants and declaring muslim territory.

  35. reality=i lived in the kingdom of saudi arabia, married to a saudi for 11years; after returning here and the bushes regime/reign, let me tell you something…the similarities between what i’d just left behind and what used to be a free America were shocking, at best. that was 25years ago…it’s only gotten worse. it’s like the bushes studied at the Kings feet as to how to control large groups of stupid people! that’s all it is…large groups of uneducated, scared and thus, stupid people, being led by their noses attached to their religious material, led down the path to destruction. no shit.

  36. Religion itself isn’t always bad. I have one myself. When religion becomes bent on domination, and turns into government, then it becomes an evil. You can’t force faith. “Believe” is a verb. You either do or you don’t. I happen to think that all religion is simply different ways humans have created to answer the Great Questions. The Questions are still there. None of our human answers is completely right, or completely wrong. Codifying ANY set of answers into secular law is not only unfair, it’s just plain nonsense.

  37. the christians and the muslims are both wrong anyways. according to themselves..supposedly god gave his word to man, moses,its in the torah…and it says god is perfect…same thing is repeated in the bible and quran..yet if god is perfect there is no need for god to change gods mind or the word he gave to moses…so the torah should be followed and the bible and the quran should be tossed in the garbage..muslims and christians agree with whats written in the torah…god is perfect…since god is perfect there is no need to change what was perfect…thats the torah, the original books of moses…so arguing over wether christian or muslim laws should be followed is moot…if all three of the big three religions agree that god is perfect…than the bible and the quran are man’s word not gods…so ignore anything from the bible or the quran because the perfect god (jewish christian or muslim words not mine,) spoke the words to moses …and if this isnt confusing anyone else it does me…and why i dont believe god ever spoke to man ever, if god is perfect it doesnt explain the imperfect human or the need to change gods word three times in the matter of a couple hundred years… so i believe in myself as part of the universe same as everyone and everything. and i follow mans law because man created law and man enforces law and man changes laws ,not god or gods and certainly not a perfect being that changes what is perfect which makes god not perfect and the religious laws not perfect. and their claim about perfection is all wrong..they are mans laws and why they are not perfect..Namaste

  38. Numbers 23:19…
    God is not a man, so he does not lie. He is not human, so he does not change his mind. Has he ever spoken and failed to act? Has he ever promised and not carried it through?

  39. JimRose, I said any religious law. What did you do answer my post but not read. Any religious law would mean Christians. No man can interpet GOD”S law to be able to impose it period. It is a law of love.

  40. Anon, The US is a land of immigrants. Christians, Muslims, and all the rest of us came to the US. This land belongs to the native Americans.I hope you agree at least on this one. When you said as “before” when before ?? so I guess the Native American will throw all of us out and will bolt the gates then. Well you will be my guest in Saudi Arabia. I will look after you my future dear neighbor!

    What is MB Sharia? Muslim brotherhood? No! I ain’t man!

  41. Salim, I do think you thirst to live under shariah and I think you should go and do so. Nothing like having actual experience of the thing you are recommending to others.

    I said as before because I have read enough history to know that I can say that.

    I myself am composed of immigrants.

  42. Here is a bible quote for Santorum “”Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a man.” (Numbers 31:17-18) “

  43. anon, I know you do a lot of reading, but sometimes you read the wrong source. I told you always refer to the Quran and Sunnah. Anon May Allah guides you to Islam!

  44. the us was not anti muslim until after world war 1 and the british zionist goal of colonizing palestine and creating israel…..proof….two baseball players..roger hornsby and babe ruth…the raja and the sultan of swat…theres no way they would have these nicknames in todays anti muslim atmosphere…and yes the us was first recognized by muslim nation.

  45. a lot changed with hollywood portrayal of arabs and muslims

  46. Hey Anon, You agree you are composed of immigrant, but your previous comments stated the non islamic countries such as the US will shut the gates on Muslism. Well if yourself fully agree that you like us are all immigrants then who gave the rights to the non muslims like you they can shut the gates. honestly this is a heavy statement man.

  47. Most of what Santorum is advocating is entirely consistent with authentic Islam (as opposed to secular literalism. Trying to make civil law consistent with religious law? That’s not just “like the Taliban,” it’s what every Muslim country wants to do, even if they don’t implement traditional sharia per se. Outlawing abortion, homosexuality, pornography–all that is entirely consistent with Islamic law, and with Islam itself. Islam is NOT consistent with secularism. It is a social relgion that must be part of the fabric of a community. It is not something practiced once a week by isolated individuals–it’s a way of life. That said, Islamic law doesn’t have to be forced on people of other religions, and Islamic tradition makes that clear. But the author of this article makes it sound as if there is something fundamentally evil about the actual implementation of Islamic law! Any authentic muslim would want civil laws to reflect Islamic law, at least to be inspired by it. An “Islam” that is divorced from Islamic law would not be Islam, any more than Judaism without Jewish law would be real Judaism. I think you are trying to re-model Islam along the lines of Protestant Christianity? We should not go too far in order to fit in here in the U.S. We should not give up who we are just to please the majority.

  48. The idea that a country is obliged to import people who despise it and would have no problem killing half the people in it is preposterous.

    My opinions have been formed by reading, mostly history.

    Large numbers of delusional utopian totalitarian and/or theocratic dreamers with the urge to eliminate all oppposition is a recipe for war.

    I think US opinion began to harden against arabs after years of watching their conflicts with Israel and with themselves. The Iraq-Iran war excesses – children marched over minefields – and the other barbaric excesses of muslim societies keep reaching our ears.

    Loathsome cultural details keep flowing in. Men using each other and little boys instead of women.

    Stories of the persecution and legal maltreatment of non muslims are nothing new. They were always circulating in the churches and sometimes refugees would come in telling tales of horror.

    It does not matter what the Koran and sunna say. Only matters what the muslims do. They stand for horror.

Have your say!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>