Vegas Sculptor’s Blog

I saw an interview recently with Mark Siegel who was a speech writer for Benazir Bhutto. He was discussing Ms. Bhutto’s latest, and sadly last, book “Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy, and the West“.

He pointed out that while Europe was in the dark ages, the Muslim countries were producing poetry, art, and inventing algebra. It was the advent of strict Sharia law that basically drove the Middle East back into the stone age.

Mr Siegel stated that Ms. Bhutto believed that Islam is a “…modern religion, gender neutral, gender equal” and that this is the message she wanted to pass on to the west. She believed that the extremist factions in the religion were the cause of distorting the faith with the resulting brutality of their laws.

And the laws are brutal. If you have seen any of the videos that can be found on the internet, you know just how brutal they can be. I’ve seen people being stoned, hands and feet cut off, things any sane person wouldn’t do to the lowest form of life much less to other humans in the name of religion or justice.

And now the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has stated that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law in the UK would help maintain social cohesion. According to an article at BBC News, “He says Muslims should not have to choose between `the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty’”.

“Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4’s World at One that the UK has to `face up to the fact’ that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system. “`There’s a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law.’”

Needless to say, this idea did not elicit the response the good Doctor had hoped for. The Evening Standard reports that Dr. Williams is now under fire to resign. “One member of the church’s `Cabinet’, the Archbishop’s Council, was reported as saying: `There have been a lot of calls for him to resign. I don’t suppose he will take any notice, but, yes, he should resign.’”

“Politicians joined the chorus of condemnation, with Downing Street saying British law should be based on British values. Tory and LibDem leaders also voiced strong criticism.”

“Even prominent Muslims were rounding on Dr Williams. Shahid Malik, Labour MP for Dewsbury, said: `I haven’t experienced any clamour or fervent desire for sharia law in this country. If there are people who prefer sharia law there are always countries where they could go and live.’”

With the growing Muslim populations in Europe and the United States, is it inevitable that parts of sharia law will creep into these countries? Is it fair for a democratic country to say “If you don’t like the laws here, go home”? Should the individual have the right to decide which court to be tried in? Which set of laws he will abide?

I can’t imagine that many would choose the strict and brutal sharia law, but pressure from family and friends might push some to do so.

I don’t think this is what Bob Dylan had in mind when he said, “Everybody must get stoned”.

With a presidential race in full swing we are seeing various individuals and groups announcing endorsements for their favorite candidate.

It seems to me that everyone has a right to endorse whoever they want. Just because I support a particular candidate doesn’t mean I agree with everything they stand for. But my endorsement certainly doesn’t mean the candidate has to agree with everything I believe!

I was amused, therefore, to read an article on Yahoo News where Senator McCain is under fire for not renouncing an endorsement from a controversial Texas televangelist.

San Antonio megachurch leader, John Hagee certainly has his enemies. Detractors say he peddles anti-Catholic and other intolerant speech. He has been quoted as saying the Catholic Church conspired with Nazis against the Jews and that Hurricane Katrina was God’s retribution for homosexual sin, and they recited his demeaning comments about women and flip remarks about slavery.

OK, so this is probably not someone you want sitting next to you at your inauguration dinner, but should a candidate renounce support from someone just because they don’t agree with everything the supporter says?

The article quoted a statement issued by McCain which said in part, “However, in no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee’s views, which I obviously do not.”

In order to get elected a candidate needs broad support from a number of different groups. They can’t possibly be expected to agree with everyone who supports his campaign.

So what’s a candidate to do? Run a background check of every supporter? Only accept endorsements from noncontroversial people? What about celebrity endorsements? Haven’t a lot of celebrities been involved in controversial roles, drugs, or other things the candidate might not agree with? Why haven’t we heard any calls to renounce any celebrity endorsements?

I don’t know, holding public office would be hard enough, I certainly don’t understand why anyone would want to submit themselves to the ordeal of running for election!