If Kim Davis Gets Her Way, Conservatives Will Have Just Opened the Door for Sharia Law

restraining-order-constitutionI’ll always remember my time at a previous employer when we had a general manager who really wasn’t very good at his job. He was a nice enough guy, but he was really lazy. For those of us in leadership roles, that meant we were often left to do things we shouldn’t have had to do because of his laziness. This prompted many of my fellow employees to frequently complain that they wished he would get transferred so we could get a GM who did their job.


That’s eventually what ended up happening. Well, at least part of that ended up happening.

Our fairly nice but sadly lazy general manager was replaced by a much lazier, arrogant, cocky, and far dumber individual. Needless to say, it wasn’t long before most of my co-workers were wishing we had our old GM back.

As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for.

That’s exactly what I’ll say to Kim Davis and those who believe she has the right to cite her religious beliefs to ignore our Constitutional law. You see, our Constitution sets up a very nice separation of church and state. While they weren’t infallible, our Founding Fathers were smart enough to know that religion and government should not mix.

If this woman is allowed to get her way, as millions of conservatives who support her seem to think she should, all they’re doing is opening the door for Sharia law in the United States. In this country, if you begin to define “freedom of religion” as the ability for someone to force their religious views on others (especially as it relates to elected officials like Davis), then you have to allow all religions to be treated equally under the law.

You can’t say Davis has the right to cite her religious beliefs to deny gay Americans their Constitutional rights to get married, but then oppose the right for a Muslim DMV to cite their religion if they decided to refuse to issue drivers licenses to women based upon their beliefs.

Not only that, but what if a judge who practices or converts to Islam begins to rule based on Sharia law instead of our Constitution? Using the “logic” of Kim Davis and her supporters, that should be legal. After all, people like Mike Huckabee seem to think that someone’s religious beliefs trump the laws supported by our Supreme Court and our Constitution. So, in their minds a person should never be forced to adhere to laws they feel go against their faith.

Hell, Huckabee flat-out said that Americans have the right to ignore “ungodly laws.”


We all know this isn’t about religious freedom, and we damn well know it’s not about every religion being treated equally. This is about those in this country who believe this nation was founded on Christianity. Those who think that the Bible – not the Constitution – is the law of the land. People like Kim Davis, Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz who believe “freedom of religion” means they’re free to force their religion on others.

But as I said earlier, these folks need to be careful what they wish for. If they’re successful in their push to allow Davis to place her faith above our Constitution – in a country where all religions must be treated fairly and equally – they will have essentially opened the door for Sharia law to one day find its way into our society.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Huckabee.



Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • ImaMe

    Why don’t the regular religious folks who disagree with the extreme views stand the hell up against the extreme??? Keeping your head in the sand doesn’t help this country!

  • Jason Hartwick

    I have the same question about this rant as I do about all the others – by christians and non-christians alike: How is it ok for you to force your lack of religion on this woman, but it is not ok for her to try to remain within the constitution and yet retain her faith? Why is it so hard to see that allowing homosexual marriages is allowable under the constitution, but that THIS WOMAN not personally giving them out is also allowable under the constitution? What needs to be changed is the policy that says that she can control what ALL the Clerks do, not to try to force this woman to give up her belief system (regardless of how WE view it as being wrong-headed or hypocritical), which is just as unconstitutional as homosexuals not being allowed to marry.

    Not to mention that you are using a conservative tactic (extreme consequences) to make your point here. This woman wants to not be forced outside her belief system, and yet remain within the law. That does NOT open the door for judges or anyone else to step OUTSIDE the law to just make up their own laws. I think this woman is a nutjob who needs to be sent back to 1950 when her attitude might be acceptable to society, but that does not change the fact that what she is *ahem* requesting is actually within her constitutional rights.

    • Sabyen91

      Nobody is forcing her to do anything but her job. Her “religious rights” don’t give her any right to deny others theirs’. She forced her religion on every person who came to that office and she forced them on her clerks.

      Also, it isn’t her job to approve or disapprove of a marriage. Her job is to make sure the proper documents are filled out. The bible says nothing about that…except maybe the whole “Caesar” thing.

    • Denise Diggs Adams

      She was given the choice not to give out the licenses herself but to allow her clerks to do it and she refused! And the reason we have such a huge problem with this particular individual is because of her extreme hypocrisy! Divorced 3x married 4x and committed adultery and got pregnant then had one husband adopt the other husbands kids conceived by adultery then after this adoption BS she divorced the one who adopted those kids and married their bio father and then divorced him and went back to the one that adopted those kids! If she truly believed the shit she’s trying to stand up for then she would’ve never done what is equivalent to the thing she’s fighting against!

    • TheNefilim

      No it is not within her rights. And if you can’t see the problems this would cause you’re either willfully ignorant or just plain stupid.

      When suddenly every bigoted clerk in the country declares it violates their religion to issue marriage licences to interracial/interfaith couples you’ll be good with that right? Their rights matter less than the poor offended bigots right?

      When a Catholic cashier refuses to ring up condoms because birth control is a sin to them that will be ok? Or a Muslim won’t ring up the pork chops you want to buy?

      Imagine a Quaker clerk refusing to issue firearms permits/licences.

      All of that is possible, and some of it very probable under your logic.

    • strayaway

      I am with Mr. Clifton on this. Kim Davis was not performing her job according to her job definition and the law. There is not a conscientious objector designation available to county clerks. She has to accept the consequences for her actions. If she would have erased her emails, conducted political prosecutions, or lied to Congress, the Justice Department might have given her a pass but she refused to marry a same sex couple. At least she doesn’t have to plead the Nuremberg defense if she gets to heaven. It never works.

      I also laud Mr. Clifton for recognizing the incompatibility of Sharia Law with Constitutional Law. Oklahoma was right to make it illegal.

  • Gary Menten

    Dingbat Davis won’t get her way. Her fifteen minutes of fame are up and the only reason we keep hearing it is because people like Mr. Clifton keep bringing her up. If she screws around again, she goes right back to jail. A Federal Court judge made that clear. The Supreme Court refused to even consider her case. The case is closed.