Davison's Doodle

Oklahoma’s Shariah Law Ban
Sightings | Martin E. Marty | December 6, 2010

In late November Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange issued a permanent injunction on the “Oklahoma shariah law ban” leaving Oklahoma at least temporarily unsaved by the “Save our State” Question 755. The constitutional amendment had been approved by 70% of the state’s voters on November 2. Sightings blinked when debates over the proposition began. It seemed too outlandish to dignify. Next Sightings squinted and filtered out headlines about the post-election debates. To avoid losing Oklahoma subscribers from Oklahoma by insulting them? Hardly: voters like the Oklahoma majority presumably live in all states.

The debate does not die down simply because of the permanent injunction. Readers who will scan the hundreds or thousands of retrievable documents discussing the issue in print or on the web will find that the early framework for discussion revolved around two questions: was this measure inspired simply by hate or simply by fear? The measure would “forbid courts from considering” international law or, the point at issue, using Islamic religious law, known as shariah, which the Oklahoma amendment defined as being based on the Qur’an and the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed.

The first explanation for the vote is fear. Fear of “the other” is so natural, so cultivated, and so exploited in recent years that, in the eyes of many, it can account for much of the support for the measure. Next, hatred of “the other,” in this case of Muslims and Islam is so patent, so palpable and contradictory to the norms about truth-telling and love held by the Christian (and other) religious majorities of the state that it can also account for the support.

More recently, however, two other factors have been at play in diagnoses. One is simply ignorance, not about terribly terrible actions against women in many shariah-based polities, for example. Innumerable stories of inhumane actions are reported domestically even though the shariah laws on which these actions are based are enforced in far-away Islamic-ruled countries. Instead, what drove Oklahomans to vote for the ban is ignorance of the nature of religious law as it is or can be effected in the United States. Thus Catholic canon law has numerous strictures against many kinds of actions by Catholics. Halakha, the Jewish code, starts with 613 laws, which are supposed to be binding on Orthodox Jews, but it holds no base or potential for civil legal action.

Some religious leaders, of course, grounded in their canon law and halakha may work to influence the mentality of voters, hoping they will vote in ways congruent with those of the religious body. But they have to persuade voters to render such preferences in civil law, something that the 30,000 Muslims of Oklahoma, whose population is 3.7 million, are not likely to achieve, even if any of them wanted to do so. (Those Muslims often include “your” Oklahoma doctor, nurse, engineer, accountant, and good neighbor.)

The other supposition by analysts of this ban is insanity. That is an uncharitable judgment, but as columnist Leonard Pitts put it, “we are gathered here today to mourn the loss of America’s mind,” a loss exemplified in the Oklahoma argument and vote. “Thoughtful people ought to be alarmed,” for these actions based on fear, hate, ignorance, or insanity give victories to terrorists, Jihadists, and others, who want us to fear. Pitts writes that they can say “America is scared stupid. Mission accomplished.” Shariah won’t do us in, and canon law won’t save us. Civil law and civil citizens, also in Oklahoma, can help do so.

References
Bill Mears, “Judge issues permanent injunction on Oklahoma Sharia law ban,” CNN, November 29, 2010.

Leonard Pitts, “Oklahoma paranoia strikes deep,” Miami Herald, December 3, 2010.

Omar Sacirbey, “Oklahoma Muslims Wary after Shari’a referendum,” The Christian Century, November 4, 2010.

Celebrating 400 Years of the King James Bible
by Martin E. Marty | November 29, 2010

Thanksgiving weekend gave those who live off or for the media an excuse to slow down, turn off some signals, and settle back to football, turkey, and family—or to shop. For those who keep the Christian calendar, yesterday was also a significant change-of-pace day, since it was the beginning of a new church year. Readers of Sightings who are distant from Christian observances cannot have escaped the carols and wreaths which resound and decorate public spaces. Looking for ways to celebrate the season and anticipate 2011, we were aided by an editorial from the Observer in the UK.

Here’s the deal: 2011 is the 400^th anniversary of the King James Version of the Bible, an event that merits observance far beyond the circles of librarians, antiquarians, and classicists. Anyone who keeps files on the fate of the KJV in the twentieth century and ever since will find many controversies to pass on the way to the book and its cultural import. Thus I have files, books, and personal recall of the way defenders of the King James edition fought off new translations. The Revised Standard Version, backed by the National Council of Churches, was scorned as “Stalin’s Bible” because it seemed to some to slight the virgin birth of Jesus. Burnings of the Bible at mid-century, when the Revised Standard Version appeared, drew attention just as the planned burning of the Qur’an recently did.

Expect debates all anniversary year over whether the authorizer of the KJV, King James I, was homosexual, bisexual, or falsely pointed to as “different” in his time as in ours. When fundamentalists have a slip of tongue or memory and speak of him as the “Saint James Bible,” selective readers of the evidence will pounce and proclaim him as a homosexual saint. This is a second distraction on the way to the celebration.

And there is much to celebrate, as the Observer editorial makes clear. More than any other writing, including the plays of Shakespeare, KJV did so much to formalize written English and do so with majesty. The Observer: “as well as selling an estimated 1bn copies since 1611,” it went into our literary bloodstream. Shakespeare needed 31,000 words to bless that bloodstream, while the KJV needed only 12,000.

Among the 12,000 words that the translating committee of King James adopted from the Hebrew and Greek were “long-suffering,” “scapegoat” and “peacemaker.” We might need all three as the antagonists line up on both sides of “Stalin’s Bible” and the sexually-complex battles mentioned above. Those who mourn the loss of the Version’s hegemony will side with Raymond Chandler, who said that the Bible was “a lesson in how not to write for the movies.” It was a lesson in how to write for elites and masses alike.

References

Robert McCrum, “How the King James Bible Shaped the English Language,” The Observer, November 21, 2010.