Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 9
Virgin Monk Boy on Ken Paxton’s “Sharia” horseshit:
A funny thing happened after I posted my video about Ken Paxton’s investigation into a Dallas-based Islamic Tribunal.
Well, “funny” in the way a raccoon hissing inside a church air vent is funny.
The video started getting views. Then the comment section filled up with people raging about Islam, Sharia, Muslims, “foreign law,” and every other recycled panic phrase that gets pulled from the same old fear factory..
And honestly?
That was the point they accidentally proved.
Because the video was not complicated. The question was simple:
Three months later, where is the evidence?
Back in April, Ken Paxton made a very public show out of investigating a Dallas-based Islamic Tribunal. The framing was obvious. Texas was supposedly under attack from some secret Sharia court. Muslims were apparently one community mediation room away from overthrowing the judiciary.
Scary music. Flashing lights. Captain Christian Nationalism rides again.
But three months later, the central question still stands:
Where is the proof that Texas law was replaced?
Where is the proof that a mosque was running the court system?
Where is the proof that Muslims were pretending to operate an official Texas court?
What we actually have, at least from what has been publicly shown, is a religious group saying its guidance is voluntary, spiritual, non-binding, and not a replacement for civil courts.
That matters.
Because religious communities handle internal guidance all the time.
Catholics have church tribunals. Jewish communities have Beth Din panels. Churches do pastoral counseling, marriage guidance, discipline processes, conflict resolution, and internal mediation. Some Christian communities even encourage believers to avoid suing one another and resolve disputes inside the church when possible.
Nobody screams “foreign law” when Christians do it.
Nobody demands a press conference when a pastor counsels a couple through a marriage dispute.
Nobody accuses Jewish communities of “replacing American law” because they have religious panels that help observant Jews navigate religious obligations.
But when Muslims do the same basic thing?
Suddenly people act like the Constitution has been dragged into a basement and waterboarded with halal soup.
That double standard is the story.
And the comment section under my video made it painfully obvious.
A lot of people were not asking for evidence. They were not asking, “Was there coercion?” They were not asking, “Did anyone pretend this was a state court?” They were not asking, “Was civil law actually violated?”
They were just mad that Muslims were doing Muslim things.
That is the part we need to stop pretending is sophisticated political concern.
This was never really about protecting Texas law. Texas law was not in danger because a group of Muslims offered voluntary religious guidance to other Muslims.
If Paxton has evidence of fraud, coercion, threats, or someone pretending to be an official court of the State of Texas, then he should produce it. That would be a real issue.
But if all he has is “Muslims gathered under their own religious tradition to help other Muslims navigate disputes,” then this is exactly the kind of government overreach the First Amendment is supposed to stop.
The state does not get to treat one religion as suspicious just because demonizing that religion plays well with the base.
And yes, I know what the comments will say.
“But Sharia!”
Right. And Catholics have canon law. Jews have halakha. Churches have doctrinal standards, internal discipline, marriage rules, counseling processes, and whole denominations with their own procedures for handling disputes.
The question is not whether a religious community has religious rules.
The question is whether those rules are being forced on people through state power or fraudulently presented as civil law.
That is the line.
Voluntary religious guidance is protected religious practice.
Coercion, fraud, or impersonating a court would be a legal problem.
Those are not the same thing.
But anti-Muslim politics depends on making them sound the same. It needs people to hear the word “Sharia” and immediately stop thinking. It needs panic to replace evidence. It needs the public to believe that Muslims are always one prayer rug away from conquest.
That is how authoritarian politics works.
First, you create a threat.
Then you inflate it.
Then you tell people only your strongman can protect them.
Then suddenly religious liberty only applies to the religions approved by the people in power.
That is not freedom. That is Christian nationalism with a badge and a press release.
And let’s be honest about the spiritual rot underneath this.
A lot of the people screaming about Islam are not protecting Christianity. They are protecting a political identity that uses Christianity as decoration.
Because if they actually cared about religious liberty, they would defend it when it is inconvenient.
If they actually cared about the Constitution, they would care when Muslims are targeted too.
If they actually cared about truth, they would ask for evidence before joining the mob.
But that is not what happened.
Instead, the comment section became a little public confessional booth where people admitted the real issue was not law, evidence, courts, or civil procedure.
The real issue was that Muslims were visible.
Muslims were organized.
Muslims were practicing their religion in public.
And for some people, that alone feels like an attack.
That is why this matters.
Not because every religious tribunal is automatically good. Not because religious communities should be above scrutiny. Not because anyone should be allowed to coerce vulnerable people behind religious language.
Scrutiny is fine.
Evidence is required.
But selective panic is something else.
When the government treats Muslim religious life as inherently suspicious while giving Christian and Jewish communities the benefit of the doubt, that is not neutral law enforcement.
That is political theater.
That is religious targeting.
That is state power being used to scare people about Muslims so MAGA voters can feel like they are fighting a holy war from their recliners.
And yes, that is authoritarian as hell.
So thank you to the angry commenters, I guess.
You helped prove the point.
You showed that this was never just about one Dallas Islamic Tribunal. It was about whether America’s promise of religious liberty means anything when the religion in question is unpopular with the loudest people in the room.
Because religious freedom is not tested when everyone likes the religion.
It is tested when people are afraid of it.
It is tested when politicians can score cheap points by demonizing it.
It is tested when the crowd is yelling, “Not them.”
That is when the Constitution either means something, or it becomes a bumper sticker for people who only want freedom for themselves.https://open.substack.com/pub/virginmonkboy/p/my-k...
No. of Recommendations: 3
When the government treats Muslim religious life as inherently suspicious while giving Christian and Jewish communities the benefit of the doubt, that is not neutral law enforcement.
The Islam faith is not the same as the Christian and Jewish Faith.
Islam has a problem with gays, Jews, women, non Muslims, atheists, apostates, beer, wine, bacon and dogs.
They riot on America’s streets and campuses destroying public property. They set up fraudulent child care facilities stealing billions of American taxpayer money.
But if I have a problem with Islam, I’m the bigot and Islamophobic.
They could be nice people if they dumped their religion and become either Christians or Jews.
No. of Recommendations: 7
“But if I have a problem with Islam, I’m the bigot and Islamophobic.”
You got it girl.
No. of Recommendations: 4
You got it girl.
Yep, thank you.
I take it you’re a dem supporting Sharia Law and all the hate it preaches.
No. of Recommendations: 11
But if I have a problem with Islam, I’m the bigot and Islamophobic.
They could be nice people if they dumped their religion and become either Christians or Jews.
You can have a problem with Islam. Lots of folks have problems with Islam, or even Christianity or Judaism.
That doesn't make you a bigot.
It's the rest of what you said that identifies you as a bigot and un-American.
No. of Recommendations: 10
“I take it you’re a dem supporting Sharia Law and all the hate it preaches.”
I take it you didn’t bother to read the OP of this thread. I’ve got nothing to add to it, other than to say that personally I don’t support any religious laws, but people have their rights.
No. of Recommendations: 3
There's nothing wrong with Islam per se that's not also present in some form or other in all the major religions + atheism (yes, atheism - practiced by most on this board - is a religion in that it has tenets of faith and elements its adherence take as Gospel).
It's the extreme elements that need to be monitored and dealt with.
What's actually happening in real life in europe (contra this board) is that because they've done a poor job of assimilating Muslims into their countries for many reasons (lack of opportunity, xenophobia, etc.) many Muslims have responded with enclaves. In some cases the reaction from the host countries has been to look the other way rather than treating everyone equally. That's how you end up with Henry Nowak (and his murderer wasn't even a Muslim).
The best way is of course the American Way, which is to set the expectations out thusly:
1. This is the land of opportunity.
2. Swear allegiance to it and obey its laws.
3. Adopt our shared culture of hard work, and you will be rewarded with success especially as your generations grow.
It's really that simple.
No. of Recommendations: 4
I take it you didn’t bother to read the OP of this thread. I’ve got nothing to add to it, other than to say that personally I don’t support any religious laws, but people have their rights.
Don't know where you live, elan, but you've just expressed the view that prevailed in the United States for most of its 250 years.....until recently.
No. of Recommendations: 3
atheism (yes, atheism - practiced by most on this board - is a religion in that it has tenets of faith and elements its adherence take as Gospel).
Uhhh...no, it's not. It is the absence of faith/religion. A negation. I would argue that even people who "don't know" are atheists because faith/religion is an affirmative statement (theist/theism). Sans that affirmative statement, one is a-theist.
But I won't do a deep dive into this argument.
I do agree with much of the rest of your post, especially the European assimilation (or, more precisely, the lack thereof). It's been several years, but I do remember a story that France (specifically Paris) was taking in Muslims, and then relegating them to a sort of ghetto without much opportunity. Not sure if that was more universal in Europe as a whole.
No. of Recommendations: 8
1. This is the land of opportunity.
2. Swear allegiance to it and obey its laws.
3. Adopt our shared culture of hard work, and you will be rewarded with success especially as your generations grow.
I'd agree.
But nowhere is there the expectation that everyone become either Christian or Jewish.
Contrast your message above with this administration that is administratively sending an entirely different message.
This administration is setting up a structure that favors Christianity.
Or more precisely, it favors a <p>particular strain of Christianity.
Of course I would argue that there is nothing "Christian" about the strain of Christianity it favors.
But, as elan says.... we all have our rights. I have no problem with someone being a Christian, or even a fundamentalist or evangelical Christian. I know many and most are fine people.
But when they enlist the government in a project of co-opting the government into enforcing their particular understanding of Christianity on the rest of us.... we have a problem.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Uhhh...no, it's not. It is the absence of faith/religion.
This is the central tenet that you take on faith. Because you can't prove it one way or the other. Nobody can. Until we die that is - and get to see who's right.
I do agree with much of the rest of your post, especially the European assimilation (or, more precisely, the lack thereof). It's been several years, but I do remember a story that France (specifically Paris) was taking in Muslims, and then relegating them to a sort of ghetto without much opportunity. Not sure if that was more universal in Europe as a whole.
Very much. Germany let in a lot of Turks...then didn't give them much of a shot.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I'd agree.
But nowhere is there the expectation that everyone become either Christian or Jewish.
No, that's not part of the deal.
I think the problem is one of labeling. We link our culture of freedom and hard work to traditional Judeo-Christian values. One could argue that many faiths including Islam have those tenets but it quickly becomes unworkable to say "Judeo-Christian-Muslim-Taoist=Hindi-etc" so we just say "Judeo-Christian".
Nowhere in the list that I wrote does it say Convert to this or that...except for the notion of converting to being a good American: A hard worker afforded the opportunities that hard work and good citizenship under the best structure for individual liberties ever conceived can give you.
No. of Recommendations: 5
This is the central tenet that you take on faith. Because you can't prove it one way or the other. Nobody can. Until we die that is - and get to see who's right.
Anyone making a positive claim ("my god exists") must provide evidence.
You cannot logically prove a negative ("your god does not exist").
Non-belief is the logical default position until proof arrives.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Anyone making a positive claim ("my god exists") must provide evidence.
You cannot logically prove a negative ("your god does not exist").
Non-belief is the logical default position until proof arrives.
Logical and even evidentiary proof will never arrive, though folks on both ends of that pointless argument have attempted to provide it for centuries.
Reducing the matter of God to the level of a theorem in geometry that can be convincingly proven or disproven with logic… is actually kind of funny.
No. of Recommendations: 6
This is the central tenet that you take on faith.
No it isn't. As another poster said, any positive claim needs to be proven with evidence. Most atheists take the skeptical position. You prove your positive claim (there is a deity), and you're done. Some atheists will take the position "there is not a deity", but that's a positive claim that has to be supported. It's still an absence of religion, but it also in unsupportable. Any atheist who's thought about it will say "there probably isn't a deity", which is just an expression of skepticism. Give us proof and we'll change our minds (most of us).
No faith involved. Proof required. Thus far, no one has been able to prove it one way or the other. So skepticism is the rational position.
No. of Recommendations: 8
No faith involved. Proof required. Thus far, no one has been able to prove it one way or the other. So skepticism is the rational position.~OPG
Yes Sir,
The utter dearth of verifiable empirical evidence, coupled with the capacity of contemporary naturalism to provide comprehensive, self-contained explanations for phenomena historically
ascribed to divine agency, severely undermines the plausibility of a traditional, interventionist deity.
For a cleaner look, here are some equally unprovable phenomena:
The Easter Bunny: A giant, pastel-colored mammal specializing in confectionery breaking-and-entering.
Bigfoot: A giant, furry, blurry recluse.
Leprechauns: Tiny, aggressive shoe-cobblers hiding micro-fortunes at the end of optical illusions.
Ghosts: Spectral interior designers obsessed with rattling chains and slamming cabinet doors.
Stolen Elections: Elaborate, multi-layered political conspiracies that conveniently vanish the second they enter a courtroom.
Ultimately, as Socrates maintained: unexamined belief is ethically dangerous.
No. of Recommendations: 1
No it isn't. As another poster said, any positive claim needs to be proven with evidence.
And this is why the existence of God is taken on faith. Literally the only way to see who's right is to pass on to the next world.
Thus far, no one has been able to prove it one way or the other. So skepticism is the rational position.
You can still believe and be a skeptic. Or not.
No. of Recommendations: 8
"Since you can't prove god doesn't exist, America needs to be a Christian nation!
Even though Jesus Christ is totally a Woke Libtard!" ~Dope1
No. of Recommendations: 2
I do agree with much of the rest of your post, especially the European assimilation (or, more precisely, the lack thereof). It's been several years, but I do remember a story that France (specifically Paris) was taking in Muslims, and then relegating them to a sort of ghetto without much opportunity. Not sure if that was more universal in Europe as a whole.
That's the nature of assimilation of every ethnic group that ever migrated. That's why Manhattan has a Little Italy, and a Chinatown, and Boston is an Irish town. They were all isolated at first, and took a couple of generations to blend in. The first generation to be born in a new country is one that speaks like a native, but still feels strong ties to their parents' homeland. The next generation views their grandparents' country of birth as a distant historic anecdote, and is often descended from mixed ethnicities.
