A real-life politician has admitted to having been wrong, even going so far as to dismiss his own previous comment as “stupid.”
He wasn’t abject about it — didn’t “apologize.” He simply explained how and why he had erred.
This … from a presidential contender.
No, it wasn’t Hillary Clinton, she of many errors and untruths. It wasn’t Bernie Sanders, whose love of Big, Intrusive Government is an error in and of itself. And it wasn’t Trump, known hyperbolist.
The erring politician? Gary Johnson, a former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico.
Johnson, who is currently running for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination, told Reason last year that banning the burqa would be a reasonable step in protecting the rights of women. Here in America.
Sound sort of Trumpian?
Earlier this month, Johnson retracted his statement. Last week on Fox Business Network’s Kennedy, he explained why prohibiting the face-veil wouldn’t work.
“We need to differentiate between religious freedom, which is [sic] Islam, and Sharia law, which is politics,” he said — and I add a “sic” there because he is obviously driving at this point: religious freedom means we cannot prohibit the religion of Islam, but Sharia law amounts to a religious intrusion into the legal and political realm. And thus must be opposed as “contrary to the U. S. Constitution.”
The reason Johnson had earlier floated the banning of the Islamic face-veil was to save women from Islamofascist enforcement of Sharia’s mandate to go around in public only when completely covered.
“We cannot allow Sharia Law to, in any way, be a part of our lives.”
I’m with him. Let’s hold tight to both religious and political freedom. And how refreshing for a politician to admit an error.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
7 replies on “Faces Veiled, Fallacies Unveiled”
Good for Mr Johnson. If only all politicians could recognize that rights are more important than restrictions, and that what looks like a good idea at the outset has more detrimental I unintended consequences than originally anticipated then we would not be in the need we are in. Bravo! I pray all running and elected were listening and learned a most basic lesson.
The idea that one can separate Sharia from Islam is preposterous. You may as well claim that you can separate lungs from breathing.
It is not necessary to separate Sharia from Islam. Persons in the United States have a right to live in accord with the moral code of their choice, as long as it does not violate the civil or criminal code of the US, state or local government where thy reside AND as long as they respect the allow the same freedom and liberty to all others. That is the soul of the United States.
Agreed with 2WarAbnVet on the implausibility of separating islam and sharia. This is never just a religion, but a political and governmental system with religion as the medium to influence and enforce. Even the most peaceful muslims in America still expect to, over the course of generations, dominate the demographics until they outnumber Christians and other faiths and rule that way. Just look at Lebanon, formerly a Christian dominated state. Look at what they want in Israel, the influx of millions of Arab muslims to demographically overcome the Jewish state. They will tell you they are against violent jihad, then they cry out when jihadist palestinians are killed while attacking Israelis with deadly intent. Besides, the 1st Amendment establishment and free exercise clauses do not enshrine islam as a protected religion, they only apply to a federal Christian denomination being foisted upon the states over a preferred state denomination. If you don’t like the original intent, go pass an Amendment. Until then, it means today what it meant in 1789.
“And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations to settle and wide abundance. And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant for the sake of Allah and His Messenger, and then death overtakes him, his reward has already been established with Allah. And Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful.” —Quaan 4:100
Sorry but Johnson was right the first time. Here in NJ, we have a requirement for photo drivers licenses. Several years ago a woman tried to get a license with a photo of her wearing a niqab, which shows only the eyes. At the time she was denied. She is free to wear her niqab but must comply with state law to get a valid drivers license. Are you saying that is unreasonable? In Islam, there are requirements for multiple witnesses to a rape. That is sharia law. Islam allows a man to kill his daughter if she ‘dishonors’ him. That is also sharia law. Islamic law doesn’t extend equal rights to women. Why should this take precedence over American civil law?
Walt Disney World (admittedly a private company) is banning costumes with face masks for its annual Halloween party, in response to the events in San Bernardino. WIll they ban the burqa? We’ll see.
Belief, and living in compliance with Sharia law is a personal choice, in the same manner as the Amish, orthodox Judism, Hindu or other tenants. Persons can be compelled to have their face reveals if the testify in court perhaps. If such is required for a state ID, drivers license or voter registration, fine. If the person does not desire to avail themselves of those rights or privileges due to their religious belief, it is their choice, and potentiometer loss or restriction.
Women can voluntarily give up their rights if they choose, but if actions are against the US and state criminal law they will have to be subject to prosecution and punishment if they violate them.
Religions can be, and should be, more restrictive than the minimums set by the civil and criminal law. That you give up rights to practice you beliefs of a higher level of morality you believe in is your choice.