What Are D.C. Police Doing Enforcing Shariah Law?
The Islamic Center, housed in a magnificent building in Washington, D.C., has been around for over a half-century, but it is seldom in the news. Unless you drive by (on Embassy Row) you would not know that it there. Because it is supposed to be a peaceful place of worship, we would not expect local police to enter.
Yet last March they did. Three D.C. Metropolitan police officers entered the center, at the direction of an imam, and removed six Muslim women. Their crime? They were worshiping peacefully in the main prayer hall after the imam announced that women were forbidden to enter that area.
What happened in Washington, D.C., should remind us of the peaceful sit-ins of the 1960s. The courts found that the police action removing people from private businesses violated the Equal Protection Clause.
In a series of cases the lower federal courts and the Supreme Court reversed convictions of black and white civil protestors who were convicted under state criminal trespass or disturbing the peace laws when they sat in the “white-only” section of various lunch counters and restaurants and refused to move after having been ordered to do so by the agent of the establishment.
Neither state nor federal laws at the time required the restaurants to serve blacks, but the courts found “state action” that violated Equal Protection. In Garner v. Louisiana (1961), for example, the Supreme Court reversed the convictions (under a state disturbing the peace statute) of those who had engaged in a sit-in, because the record was “totally devoid of evidentiary support” that petitioners caused any disturbance of the peace. They sat there quietly.
Peterson v. Greenville (1963) reversed the trespass conviction of blacks who had engaged in a lunch counter sit-in. The store manager asked the blacks to leave because integrated service was “contrary to local customs” and a local ordinance. The Supreme Court held that “these convictions cannot stand,” whether or not a local ordinance supported the store manager. In Lombard v. Louisiana (1963), decided the same day, the Court reversed the trespass convictions of three blacks and one white who had sat in a privately owned restaurant that served only whites. The case involved no statutes or ordinances, but the police did say that “no additional sit-in demonstrations … will be permitted.” Justice Douglas, concurring, argued that there was state action when the state judiciary “put criminal sanctions behind racial discrimination in public places.”
Maybe that’s the way to stand up to the Muslims and show them it’s time to play nice and fit in. If they don’t like non-Muslims or women in their mosques, maybe a group of white Christians, men and women alike, should hold a PEACEFUL sit in in mosques all over the United States. If Muslims went to a Catholic or Christian church, they would be allowed in without question. I’m not sure they would feel welcomed a Jewish temple but I’d be willing to bet that they wouldn’t be turned away, that the cops wouldn’t be called. Show the Muslims that in this country, everyone is equal. That in this country, every one is free. We have an illegal immigration only because people WANT to come here. Maybe we need to show them that we expect them to live up to a certain standard. Maybe non-Muslims should be listening to what the Imams here in the states are telling their followers.
In my opinion, the FBI or some other law enforcement agency should already be doing this. Finding, and shutting down, those mosques that are teaching the violent, radical edge of Islam. This seems like common sense to me.
I think..this is still America, even if it was DC, so where is the
National Organization of Womenn in this?
Where is the ACLU? Hiding?
If this was the boy scouts, The ELKS, a private golf club, etcetcetc..these people would be all over this and I doubt seriously the police would have interfered..
Jefferson, you should check out this video, it’s on my blog where I just put it up on from You Tube.
http://kingdavid1960.blogspot.com/2010/09/wellesley-massachusetts-public-school.html
It’s already happening but we are made to take part in Muslim prayer while at the same time they try to proselyze our children. I’m a Christian, I have no qualms having my children take part in worship at a synagogue. But this is different. Worse, and I know this without the narrator saying so, they use takijjah, lying for the advancement of Islam.
the person and or persons responsible for this abuse of power should be fired immediately and stripped of all benefits,
wow..the welfare rolls would drop hey>
This is sanctioned from above. From the president all the way down.
If an Orthodox Jewish synagogue had women removed from the men’s section on a trespassing charge, would you be as indignant?
It’s sex discrimination for there to be only men for priests in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. That’s legal (at least for now).
Here’s something where not even religion is involved: so if women come into the Augusta National Golf Club, uninvited, they can’t be taken off the premises for trespassing because it’s sex discrimination?
Sorry to tell you, but religions can indeed treat different sexes differently, just like different private clubs can. There is no Equal Rights Amendment (thank goodness), so indeed, sex discrimination is legit under a variety of situations. And yes, it can be trespassing or disturbing the peace if women try to break the sex boundaries these various groups have set up within their our premises.
I think you need to rethink your article. Maybe you can come back and say why it’s worse with Muslims vs. Orthodox Jews, Catholics, or Augusta National.
I most definitely would. It is not a government’s business to remove people who are exercising their rights to free speech. If some women decide, for political reasons, to go into male sections of synagogue, I’d be upset about it, but I’d be much more upset if police was called to remove them, especially if criminal trespass charges were used for justifications.
You are missing the point completely. If this would be in an sharia adheering country it would be one thing. We couldn’t say anything whether we liked it or not. But what the police is doing here is actin out sharia which is none of their concern because we are not an Islamic country. The agenda here is that more and more police either do not show interest to protect the rights of a none Muslim as happened in New York when Muslims were protesting and the Green shirts (version of the brown shirts) were pushing a photographer away from the scene and therefore violated his (press pass) rights as a reporter to report on the events happening. There came no help from the NYPD officers. The same thing is happening in D.C. The police is ENFORCING sharia law which is none of their business and actually they play into the hands of Muslims who would like to see America come under the same. THAT’S WHAT’S WRONG!!!!
The difference is………. if the women did that in an Arab country ….. they would be stoned!
Orthodox Jewish synagogues also have separate male and female areas. Are we to expect a ‘feminist’ assault any time soon?
Sorry, but the First Ammendment protect Freedon of Religion. I am as much an “Islamophobe” as the next conservative but they have every right to practice this kind of dicrimination as any other faith. Now, had I been the desk officer receiving the call I would have asked if these intruders were causing trouble by something other then their mere presence. If the answer is no I would have told them “not my problem.”
There is a difference between a religious organization enforcing their own beliefs and then using the police to enforce their beliefs.
How ironic that the “separation of church and state” folks are ignoring this issue?
So you’re saying they should have forced the women out themselves rather than calling the police? Really?!
A theater charges $8 to get in. Should they enforce that charge themselves? What can they do if someone walks in without a ticket, ignores the ticket taker, and sits down in the theater? Ultimately, private rules rely on police enforcement.
Again, unless you think they should have used physical force themselves.
Wait, were the women arrested? Because your supreme court precedents all reversed convictions. If the women were arrested and/or charged, then you might have a point. However, the police can enforce property rights in this case, even if you or society find it repugnant. If homosexuals were asked to leave a Baptist church, you can bet police would escort them off the premises.
Police would not escort homosexuals from a Baptist Church unless they were disturbing the peace. (shouting, impeding people getting to and from sanctuary for example, etc.) These women were not disturbing the peace anymore than the sit in people were. That is the point of the article and why the arrests were overturned.
You are wrong. If the church owner asked someone to leave a church for any reason, and they refused, the police would escort them out of the church. This is how trespass laws work. Once you’ve been asked to leave and refused, the police will escort you out.
You can’t call the police and say “Escort out any homosexuals/women/blacks you find.”, of course. But you can call the police and say “Escort out those seven people. I asked them to leave, and they refused.”
I don’t think the issue is whether a mosque or a temple has the right to discriminate against women. The issue is that the DC police cannot be used to enforce it as long as the women are protesting peacefully. Personally, I don’t understand why a woman would be interested in being a part of any religion that denigrates her. I think the better protest would be to just leave all together.
As much as I usually agree with the articles here on PJM, I have to join the chorus that says you are way off base here.
If the Islamic Center is a private religious institution, then they have every right to discriminate according to the views of their religion when it comes to religious matters. It doesn’t matter how offensive the rest of us find it. If those women were disturbing the peace and refusing to leave, the Center has as much right as your local Dunkin Donuts does to call the cops for assistance in making them leave.
There are enough legitimate ways to go after Islam. Don’t stretch and use weak arguments like this, it only provides ammo to discredit the worthy critiques.
Just think of all the police fun there will be when your libertarian hero Rand Paul gets his way and rolls-back the Civil Rights Act!! There will be all kinds of freedom-of-association going on. Yeeehaawww!!
I’ve got a private pub/restaurant/pool/museum/ etc. and I don’t want all these brown people, women, Jews etc. coming in here. HELP!!! SECURITY!!! Round ‘em up please!!!
You can’t encourage discrimination and then try to use existing anti-discrim laws to get your way. That’s called having your cake and eating it too. Hypocrites.
(Gender is only mid-level or intermediate scrutiny under equal protection anyway).
You again. Discrimination occurs all over. And the MSM and police ignore it. Lets talk about the NAACP or the Cong. Black Caucus. They are a segregated groups. Do the NBP allow white Americans to join? Can I get a United Negro College Fund scholarship? How about jobs that openly cite: “minority or protected classes encouraged to apply?” Affirmative action is openly discriminatory against white males.
So until you eliminate these open forms of discrimination that I bet you support, you have no creditable say in this conversation.
Privacy means private unless you’re a progressive where it means whatever they want it to mean.
Well, to be fair to the police, had the women not been removed they may have very well been murdered by the members of the religion of peace. Perhaps not in the Center but maybe by a father or brother when they return home. Not an outcome that would be probable for women violating separation in a synagogue or homosexuals attending a Baptist ceremony. So we get down to Justice Breyer’s “rioter’s veto” theory of constitutionality.
For those who see no problem in Islam discriminating against women and no problem in “infidel police” enforcing Sharia. WATCH OUT! You are already following Sharia.
“From my window, I can see the beautiful minaret of the Washington, D.C., mosque on Massachusetts Avenue. It is situated at the heart of the capital city’s diplomatic quarter, and it is where President Bush went immediately after 9/11 to make his gesture toward the “religion of peace.” A short while ago, the wife of a new ambassador told me that she had been taking her dog for a walk when a bearded man accosted her and brusquely warned her not to take the animal so close to the sacred precincts.”
Christopher Hitchens
http://www.slate.com/id/2264770/
If the bearded man used threatening language on public property then he was guilty of assault. If his words were a mere request it is within his rights to ask. It was also in her rights to tell him to pound sand.
I would have told him that any culture that doesn’t recognize the value of a dog is a defective culture and if he didn’t like it he could take it up with the me and the dog.
This op-ed makes no sense from a property rights perspective or a religious freedom perspective. DC police are simply applying the regular law, not Sharia.
First, any property owner can ask the police to take a trespasser off their property. I can’t stage a sit-in at your house because I disagree with you, nor are you violating any law by allowing only one ethnic group or gender into your house. The difference with a segregated soda fountain or hotel is that you aren’t a place of public accommodation. Houses of worship aren’t either, nor should they be.
Second, it is a strange idea of religious freedom to argue that a house of worship cannot exclude people from its property who disagree with its beliefs. Gay rights activists don’t get to interrupt Mass, and pro-Palestinian militants don’t get to disrupt Yom Kippur services.
The right to exclude is fundamental to both property rights and religious freedom. This op-ed takes aim at Muslims but if it were actually carried out the main victims would be whomever government officials don’t like, including many PJM readers.
You got it right. Whether we like it or not, if we want to preserve our own freedoms we sometimes have to look the other way when people exercise theirs in ways we don’t approve of. The perennial example is allowing the KKK to march down main street. If we ban their demonstration today, then tomorrow somebody will be able to ban ours. That’s how the Constitution works – it ain’t based on personal likes and dislikes.
I agree that there’s an inherent contradition, though: in order to preserve our freedom, we have to protect the freedom of people to do things that undermine other people’s freedom.
One note …Islam is not a religion….
too true!!!..it’s a killing machine
All these pointy head sophisticates on here arguing about religious and or property rights. The discussion should be as to why this barbarism is considered a “religion”. You still do not get the freaking point of Islam. Keep up the idle chatter. Someday you will remember a anonymous blogger who said the islam is NOT a religion. It is merely a subterfuge for sharia and a political system. It is a murderous, barbaric political system that is the worst the 7th century had to offer. These followers should be escorted to the borders of this country. All of them. Call me names, go ahead. In years to pass you will regret the folly of allowing islam into the USA. It is pure folly and madness. Remember those words.
islam is sharia, sharia is islam….you can’t separate the two….your arguments are idiotic…at best…
Actually it is. It’s a modern pretension to believe that religions only cover “morality” (and a vague abstraction of it at that) and have nothing to do with “real” life. All religions instruct their followers how to behave in society, how to interact with the government, and how to behave towards one’s family. Islam is simply more explicit about how it expects the social systems in Muslim countries to be set up and enforced. Christians are supposed to be “in the world and not of it.” Islam is all about being “of” the world.
If you mean a “religion” like marxism, maoism, national socialism, shintoism, then we agree…otherwise i stand by my premise that is is a political, economic control system masquerading as religion…
wow….most still do not get the premise of the article…..by having the police enforce existing “property” laws, sharia is thus upheld via stealth….it’s a perfect symbiosis….and they know it…..it is the slow, inevitable creep of sharia law….DON’T YOU SEE THIS…..it is happening wherever islam has a foothold in America………slow….sure……until one day….
Chiming in with those who say the mosque-keepers were within their rights. Every restaurant in America tells you right up front that they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. If they don’t have a burly guy on the premises, they can call the cops.
Actually, signs not withstanding a restaurant may not refuse service to someone based on race, religion, sex, etc. (the protected classes). Okay, maybe you can not serve them but you can’t use the police to remove them. As outlined article there are SCOTUS cases that specifically prohibit police from assisting in the discrimination by removing individuals from the premise.
Hold on … this was not an enforcement of sharia law. It was a legitimate response to a request to remove unwanted persons from private property.
Finally. Someone should tell the Prof that a mosque is not a restaurant.
If these same individuals walked in dressed as men, would they have been removed? What if the men went to the ladies place of study…would the men be removed? Is it illegal for a man to enter a ladies restroom…it is not law but it is a moral crime, not an actual physical crime…which is what America focuses on…the actual actions as well as premeditation. For example, the public restrooms…it may not be illegal for a woman to enter a locker room for men, however, it is not something American law covers as a physical crime…it is considered wrong for our entire society…it is a form of separation/segregation for the health and safety of all people who enter public restrooms.
Definition of SEGREGATION 1: the act or process of segregating : the state of being segregated
2 : the separation or isolation of a race, class, or ethnic group by enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted area, by barriers to social intercourse, by separate educational facilities, or by other discriminatory means
b : the separation for special treatment or observation of individuals or items from a larger group
social intercourse – communication between individuals
intercourse
intercommunication – mutual communication; communication with each other; “they intercepted intercommunication between enemy ships”
communion, sharing – sharing thoughts and feelings
sex segregation, purdah – the traditional Hindu or Muslim system of keeping women secluded
Most importantly, why the heck does it matter where u worship? As long as you are not committing what American Laws consider to be a crime, (ie. sex in public , murder, aggravated/assault, burglary, rape, mental abuse, physical abuse, verbal abuse ect……
Trespassing really? Were they members of the place of worship before the day they were physically removed? If yes, then they are not trespassing! There was “sex segreation” CLEARLY!If not, then they could be considered trespassing by who? God or only the persons name documented on the property as deed owner, in which case the owner would have to be the person to press charges per each individual based on trespassing due to the request for banning the persons from the premises.
If these same individuals walked in dressed as men, would they have been removed? What if the men went to the ladies place of study…would the men be removed? Is it illegal for a man to enter a ladies restroom… is it not law “women only” but a crime to privacy… ethical/moral crime, not an actual physical crime…which is what America focuses on…the actual actions as well as premeditation. For example, the public facilities..it may not be illegal for a woman to enter a locker room for men, however, it is considered wrong for our entire society morally & ethically due to privacy laws…it is a form of separation/segregation for the health and safety of all people who enter public locker rooms.
Definition of SEGREGATION 1: the act or process of segregating : the state of being segregated
2 : the separation or isolation of a race, class, or ethnic group by enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted area, by barriers to social intercourse, by separate educational facilities, or by other discriminatory means
b : the separation for special treatment or observation of individuals or items from a larger group
social intercourse – communication between individuals
intercourse
intercommunication – mutual communication; communication with each other; “they intercepted intercommunication between enemy ships”
communion, sharing – sharing thoughts and feelings
~~ sex segregation, purdah – the traditional Hindu or Muslim system of keeping women secludedSimilarly in strict Muslim communities today, women are discouraged from going to the mosques. Yet, Muhammad specifically admonished the men not to keep their wives from going to the mosques:
Ibn Omar reported,
The Messenger of God said, “Do not prevent the maid-servants of God from going to the mosque.”(Muslim, No.888) (See also Nos. 884-891 and Bukhari Vol.1, Nos. 824, 832)
Also, it is clear from the following hadith that the women simply prayed behind the men and were not separated in a separate room or even concealed by a curtain or partition as is practiced in so many mosques today:
Asma’ daughter of Abu Bakr said,
I heard the Apostle of God say, “One of you who believes in God and in the Last Day should not raise her head until the men raise their heads lest she should see the private parts of men.”(Sunan Abu Dawud, No. 850).
Thus Islam requires believers to:
Treat one another with respect at all times in all situations.
Behave modestly.
Avoid situations of seclusion.
Dress modestly.
[edit]Sex segregation in Islamic countries
Part of a series on
Islamic Culture
Dress
Abaya · Agal · Boubou
Burqa · Chador · Jellabiya
Niqab · Salwar kameez · Taqiya
Thawb · Jilbāb · Hijab
Holidays
Ashura · Arba’een · al-Ghadeer
Chaand Raat · al-Fitr · al-Adha
Imamat Day · al-Kadhim
New Year · Isra and Mi’raj
al-Qadr · Mawlid · Ramadan
Mugam · Mid-Sha’ban
Literature
Arabic · Azeri · Bengali
Indonesian · Javanese · Kashmiri
Kurdish · Persian · Punjabi · Sindhi
Somali · South Asian · Turkish · Urdu
Islam Portal
v • d • e
[edit]Afghanistan
See also: Taliban treatment of women
Afghanistan, under Taliban religious leadership, was characterized by feminist groups and others as a “gender apartheid” system where women are segregated from men in public and do not enjoy legal equality or equal access to employment or education.[3][4] In 1997 the Feminist Majority Foundation launched a “Campaign to Stop Gender Apartheid in Afghanistan”, which urged the U.S. government and the United Nations to “do everything in their power to restore the human rights of Afghan women and girls.” The campaign included a petition to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and U.N. Assistant Secretary General Angela King which stated, in part, that “We, the undersigned, deplore the Taliban’s brutal decrees and gender apartheid in Afghanistan.”[5]
“Saudi religious police” enforce the wearing of abaya and hijab on all women, even foreigners. Those rules however do not apply in some areas. (See Dhahran for example)
Other Muslim countries have their own versions of Muslim modest dress for women: see burka and chador.
Most importantly, why the heck does it matter where u worship? As long as you are not committing what American Laws consider to be a crime, (ie. sex in public , murder, aggravated/assault, burglary, rape, mental abuse, physical abuse, verbal abuse ect……Trespassing really? Were they members of the place of worship before the day they were physically removed? If yes, then they are not trespassing! There was “sex segreation” CLEARLY! If not, then they could be considered trespassing by who? God or only the authoritative persons name documented on the property as deed owner, in which case the owner (authoritive) would have to be the person to press charges per each individual based on trespassing due to the request for banning the persons from the premises. If these same individuals walked in dressed as men, would they have been removed? What if the men went to the ladies place of study…would the men be removed? Is it illegal for a man to enter a ladies restroom…it is not law but it is a moral crime, not an actual physical crime…which is what America focuses on…the actual actions as well as premeditation. For example, the public restrooms…it may not be illegal for a woman to enter a locker room for men, however, it is not something American law covers as a physical crime…it is considered wrong for our entire society…it is a form of separation/segregation for the health and safety of all people who enter public restrooms.
Definition of SEGREGATION 1: the act or process of segregating : the state of being segregated
2a) the separation or isolation of a race, class, or ethnic group by enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted area, by barriers to social intercourse, by
2b) the separation for special treatment or observation of individuals or items from a larger group
social intercourse – communication between individuals
intercourse
intercommunication – mutual communication; communication with each other; “they intercepted intercommunication between enemy ships”
communion, sharing – sharing thoughts and feelings
sex segregation, purdah – the traditional Hindu or Muslim system of keeping women secluded
sex segregation, purdah – the traditional Hindu or Muslim system of keeping women secluded
cites credit online @ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/segregation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_segregation_and_Islam
As little respect as I have for Arab tribal customs masquerading as religion (segregation by sex, for instance), I have to disagree with this article. Freedom of religion means the government has no right to interfere with religious practice unless it actively, physically harms someone. If Muslims want to be idiots and keep their women out of their main prayer sections because they believe it’s part of their religion, that’s their right according to our Constitution… just as it’s the womens’ right to protest. The DC cops had no business being there, unless it was to protect the women from violence from the men.
Like RebeccaH, I am no lover of islam (an ideology. However, the segregation of women in a house of prayer is not unique to islam. Synagogues have the same tradition. That’s all it is, a tradition and it needs to be respected if the Synagogue members wish to worship that way. If three women walked into the men’s section of a conservative Synagogue they would be politely asked to move to the women’s section. There are liberal or progressive Synagogues where men and women do sit and pray together so that is the place for the three women. I don’t know if there are mosques where the sexes mix but I have seen mosques where men in front and women in back share the same space. If that is what the members of the mosque want, that has to be respected. These three women were trouble-makers but calling the cops was an absurd exaggeration. It would not have happened in a Synagogue.
Sorry, this isn’t an “encroaching Sharia” issue. This is a freedom of religion and property right issue. The “police action” analysis that ended private discrimination in restaurants were justified as a legal matter under the theory that restaurants and business are places of public accomodation. A relgious temple/most/synagauge/etc does not apply because they are not places of public accomodation but are strictly limited to their members. As such, they can discriminate as they please.
Moreover, the mosque is basically owned by its congregants, of which the Imam is their legally recognized spokesman. If the Imam concludes, reasonably or not, that women are not allowed and any women present are trespassers, then as the law is concerned the police have no choice but to accept that assertion and eject the trespassers.
My memory is jogged to incident that offended and and befuddled me during the late 1968 69 in New York City. A young friend and I decided to visit each others Sunday religious services. His Geek Orthodox mine Roman Catholic. The grand difference that would open my youthful eyes and cause me much consternation was my being a identified as an Black person despite my varied mixed racial background and anthropological and theological curiosity.
Security (just a layman) barred me entry into the service. This deeply offended my Greek -American friend as he confronted those who were so to speak the gatekeepers of the religious homogenization that thousand of congregations enforce quietly and not so quietly across this country.
I give myself some credit as I was thoughtful enough that I knew they had some justification to protect sanctity of what they see as worship and not just a place for the curious to wander into. Which I find American and Western Europeans and often traipse to casually and dishearteningly disrespectfully in their indulgence to just go and experience the other.
Race faith and religion are a rubic cube like abstractions in a free an constitutionally principled society. The peculiar justification in the Islamic faith and even some Orthodox Jewish faiths concerns the menstruation of women in justification of segregation, besides their gender.
Faith should be practiced freely yet inordinately ill prescribed behaviors (cannibalism, virgin sacrifice, stoning to death) yes, our society needs to put the kabosh on those tendencies quickly.
After saying all this, yes we should ban the burqua? Liberals regale themselves with nonsense (Margaret Atwoods” The Handmaids Tale) faux freakouts of Evangelical terror. Sarkozy and the French I believe have the correct corrective prescription. We’re French! Thus be French. Our present American prescription is a slow poison which will lead to losing control of our national narrative. Freedom, liberty, the pursuit of happiness!
If you so desire to be Greek, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Orthodox or Liberal behind the sanctity of the doors of that particular faith. Just please acknowledge and respectfully submit their is an American Way and it’s flexible but never a doormat to bullying an ill warranted non-evolvement of each free agent citizen born or migrated to these shores.
I may not live to see it but their will be a 2nd or 3rd generation Lady Ga Ga of muslim heritage. Yes my Muslim friends and you know it . It’s the American Way! It’s scary but if it’s too scary for your taste leave. That’s the American Way also!
Property is different (and not truly private) when the owner throws the property open to the public. The local diner does not have the same right as I do to decide who comes over for dinner. If a religion has an issue as to who owns the property on which the church is built – with one side saying that the other side forfeited their rights because they took heretical positions – we know that, under the First Amendment, courts cannot decide which side is heretical.
If a private school wants to exclude blacks then, in the absence of a statute, they can do that. But the state cannot subsidize that discrimination by giving all schools (including the private racist school) free textbooks. States cannot aid and abet violations of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Consider this hypothetical: let us say that the local newsboy walks across your front lawn on the way to deliver a newspaper to your neighbor. You tell him not to, but he does it anyway. You call the police & tell them to come over at 8 a.m. so that they will see the trespass. Then, you ask them to arrest him when he does it. Do you think the police will do that? Now, let me add a wrinkle: all this happens in D.C., where the police have real crimes like murder to worry about. Do you think the police will spend its time to enforce the local trespass law?
As I pointed out in my article -
“And we know that the discrimination based on race or sex could not exist without the help of the local police. The question is why the D.C. police – who have real crime to worry about – are spending their time and taxpayer dollars to enforce shariah law.”
You would think that the DC police would have better things to do than enter a Mosque and tell people that they are not sitting in the proper section of the worship area. And, we should all wonder why the police would enforce the Shariah law when they will not enforce the trespass law as applied to the newsboy.
Your analogy is not even remotely comparable. The paperboy is a transient ‘trespasser’ and is not interfering in any way with your use and enjoyment of your property.
The police are not telling them that they’re sitting in the wrong place. The police are telling them that they are refusing to obey the owner’s lawful request that they leave his premises.
Your police priorities argument seem disingenuous to me. Are you suggesting police should never enforce trespass laws? I would suspect they likely respond to all trespass situations involving disruptive, persistent trespass. Go to your local church and perform Jewish prayers in a disruptive manner and the exact same thing will happen.
DC police are allowing a church to run its services the way it wants to?! How unAmerican of them!
So let me get this right; the author is mad because these 6 women were trespassing and the cops hauled them away?
Can I come over to your house and hang out even though you don’t want me there?
Amidst all the bluff and bluster, I think what is being disregarded is not whether this mosque and imam had the ‘right’ to throw these women out or not, but this: AMERICAN POLICE WERE USED TO ENFORCE SHARIA. All these other examples and what-ifs are really irrelevant.
It’s much more accurate to say: AMERICAN POLICE WERE USED TO ENFORCE AMERICAN LAW. All those other examples and what-ifs are really irrelevant.
NO, THEY WEREN’T! They were being used to evict trespassers.
Jeez…!!!
“Property is different (and not truly private) when the owner throws the property open to the public. The local diner does not have the same right as I do to decide who comes over for dinner.”
However, a church is not a place of public accomidation.
“If a religion has an issue as to who owns the property on which the church is built – with one side saying that the other side forfeited their rights because they took heretical positions – we know that, under the First Amendment, courts cannot decide which side is heretical.”
“Consider this hypothetical: let us say that the local newsboy walks across your front lawn on the way to deliver a newspaper to your neighbor. You tell him not to, but he does it anyway. You call the police & tell them to come over at 8 a.m. so that they will see the trespass. Then, you ask them to arrest him when he does it. Do you think the police will do that?”
First of all, technically this IS trespassing. Secondly, according to your article, there is no mention of the women being arrested, only removed from the site.
They were enforcing American law. This so apples and oranges it is gross negligence on the authors part. Sharia law makes thieving illegal. If the police arrest someone for robbing another person the author is accusing the police of enforcing sharia law. This is a stupid argument for so many reasons. First, places of worship and businesses have separate rights under the law. Second, in orthodox synagogues men and women are kept separate. Third, women are not allowed to be priests. Fourth, it was trespassing and that is illegal.
Most of the posters here have it right: Like it or not, religious communities and their places of worship get a pass for lots of bronze-age crap that would get anyone else sued, arrested, picketed, and run out of business. That’s just the way it is. If you want the authorities to crack down on the ones you don’t like, then you’d better look out – they’ll be cracking down on *your* church next.
P.S. – Conservatives shouldn’t consider this a bad thing. Your place of worship is one of the few places left where the Government and media can’t persecute you for holding values and beliefs that are contrary to those promoted by our left-leaning “official” culture. Don’t give them an excuse to violate that sanctuary – or anyone else’s.
Why shouldn’t they enforce Sharia?
General Petreus and President Obama are enforcing Sharia and making sure Islam isn’t insulted by the filthy kaffir. Virtually every author at PJM upheld Sharia with their fulsome condemnations of that little pastor in Florida. Nearly the entire US political leadership from the President on down has come out in favor of the Ground Zero Triumphal Mosque. Most of the media shill for Islamic sensibilities, and condemn those who flout Sharia by drawing cartoons of Mohammad or want to burn their execrable blood stained book… Why should the cops be any different???
Morton::
Excellent point.
The pimping of distractions is reaching saturation of the market with more than a few major wars going on.
Certainly in a regime of selective law enforcement (in our new world of virtual relativism), our personal selections are just as valid as those of our rulers and providers even if we do nothing else but squander judgement opporunities on the fatuous but precocious imbecles.
Shariah will be the death of them all where the rubber meets the road.
The next big riot may solve all the petty arguments at once — the unemployed will have more than just time on their hands.
Have a nice day.
While I agree the D.C. police should not have helped enforce the segregation rules of the mosque, your comparison to 1960 sit-ins and lunch counter protests is just way off. The mosque is specifically protected by the First Amendment to order its worship according to the dictates of Islamic belief. Just like Hasidic Jews, some Islamic denominations segregate by sex during worship and prayer. While this may “offend” certain liberal sensibilities, nonetheless, those who choose to belong to such religious denominations are not forced to stay. If they do not like being separated by sex, they can worship somewhere else.
Sharia law is filled with countless horrible laws and mandates. This is not one of them. By trying to inflate it as one, diminishes the legitimate arguments against it.
They were escorted off private property after refusing to voluntarily leave. That’s “Sharia Law” to you? Gee, I wonder what would happen if I walked into, say, the Heritage Foundation’s headquarters and started handing out leaflets promoting liberal political causes, was asked to leave, and refused? Do you think maybe the police would escort me from the premises, despite the fact that I’m engaging in activity protected by the First Amendment? How utterly dishonest is this article, and by extension, the site that runs and promotes such nonsense? I thought conservatives respected property rights? Isn’t this mosque private property? Don’t its owners have the right to determine who may, or may not, use their private facility?
Actually a church/place of worship is more comparable to a private club than a private residence or place of business.
A private club elects members and can exclude anyone for no good reason (as long a it cannot be demonstrated it was based upon race, colour or creed).
An all white membership is not necessarily evidence of racial discrimination….unless somebody shoots their mouth off for example.
It is not unusual for clubs to eject members for variety of reasons…especially criminal or moral offence.
Here-abouts the local fish and game club (a gun/shooting club) with extensive grounds, ranges and a club house had a sudden influx of new member applications.
It transpired that a dog club coveted the facilities, intended to out-number the sportsmen/shooters, out-vote the sportsmen/shooters and eject them, eliminate shooting and have a doggie heaven…..
But there is no honour among thieves, this came to light when their agenda was hi-jacked by the local LIBERAL PARTY of CANADA whose intent was to gain control…end shooting, eject the original members, sell the property and add the proceeds to the party coffers.
When the membership rejected all new membership applications, except those with 2 existing members as sponsors….the conspirators went to court to gain membership….in futility.
Many faiths/denominations separate genders…..Amish and Quakers, for example, in their places of worship.
Actually the Amish have an extremely civilized way to resolve such matters….as to whether cars, black or otherwise…or tractors/electic light, televisions are allowed the flock. If an individual or group seeks an unpopular change, they move to a different community where this is practice is allowed. Sometimes the reactionaries leave…
too much talk, serious action means giving ones own life for a just cause, god will guide, talk is for idiots, being an instrument of god cant be wrong, all too often people get away with far too much in life because nobody stands up against them ,
“How utterly dishonest is this article, and by extension, the site that runs and promotes such nonsense? I thought conservatives respected property rights?”
Did you actually bother to read the other comments on this article? If you had, you’d note that they are almost uniformly negative. The regular readers on this site have taken Rotunda to the woodshed over this piece and on precisely those grounds (property rights). Nice try though.
Did you bother to actually read my comment fully? I didn’t say “the site’s commenters”, I said “the site”, as in the people in charge here that greenlight an article like this or allow someone who would write an article like this to blog here in the first place.
Yes I read your post, but the fact the hostility of this crowd is to the tone of this article should tell you all you needed to know about the people drawn to this sight believe about this issue. And it seems strange to ty to tar conservatives as being hypocrites on property rights but ignore those who are showing their intellectual consistency because they are not “official” voices of this site.
“Their crime? Worshiping peacefully.”
No, their crimes was trespassing.
It would be the same if I decided to start worshipping in your living room without your permission.
You call the cops, and I get removed, and that’s how it ought to be.
Oh, I get it. It just depends on what “trespassing” is. Kinda like when a muslim female gets beheaded, stoned, acid thrown in her face, or beaten to death because she “trespassed” against her Islamic/Koran-dictated status as subhuman chattel.
Aside from that, muslims have trespassed into America with Sharia Law, terrorist attacks and Dhimmi encroachment of our schools, politicans, and judicial system. Can I call the cops?
‘It just depends on what “trespassing” is.’
What it is being on someone’s property without their permission.
feminist and muslims cave in on themselves; over each other. It’s actually funny to kick back and watch.