Christian Sharia Law: Iowa Governor’s Proclamation Destroys Separation Of Church And State

(By Josh Kilburn)

Christian Sharia Law: Iowa Governor’s Proclamation Destroys Separation Of Church And State (Video) (via Americans Against The Tea Party)

  The astroturfed pandemic of Christian self-righteousness continues to plumb new depths, proving that like their Bible, there isn’t a part of the Constitution they won’t ignore, twist, or warp, in an effort to shore up their abjectly amoral personal…


Related video:

The Young Turks: “Evolution Battle In Kansas… Again!”

7 Responses

  1. Here’s a question US Christian fundamentalists should consider: How many times does the word “God” appear in the US Constitution?

    Answer: Zero.
    The First Amendment to the Constitution does refer to religion but not in a manner that fundamentalist Christians desire. The First Amendment does not privilege Christianity; rather, it reads in part that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” As well, “Article 6, Section 3 states explicitly that federal officials ‘shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.’ The addition of the word ‘affirmation’ is significant because it meant that officeholders could not be compelled to take an oath on the Bible….[T]he founders, who did in fact live in an era when the states were peopled almost entirely by Christians, thought to include freethinkers and non-Christians…in their basic laws.” link to

  2. Nervy of me to offer this impression of “Sharia Law” in this spot, but it seems to me that underlying the whole pseudo-Christianist thing is the real reason the banksters and the Kochs and the faker TV preachers are really concerned about “Sharia law” is the economic bits. There’s plenty of hypocrisy and horror in implementation of Sharia, it appears (just like the Paulist scam version of Jesus-ism), but there’s a nocked arrow aimed at the black heart of Western fiscalility held by the Muslim banking archer.

    The Corporatist concepts of debt and usury as Good Business Practices, and of “money” as an ASSET that can be leveraged, are big no-nos. There’s a lot of hypocrisy among Muslims, too, when it comes to High Finance and financialization and monetization, just like with drinking alcohol and eating proscribed foods and various other kinds of proscribed profligacy.

    But if the Sharia framing of economic relations, particularly what we call “banking” relations, were to catch on, where would Lloyd Blankfein and Timmy Geithner and that Chicago toad Friedman be? Here’s a bit of text from one of many primers on Sharia finance:

    The Big Picture

    Although they have been mandated since the beginnings of Islam in the seventh century, Islamic banking and finance have been formalized gradually since the late 1960s, coincident with and in response to tremendous oil wealth which, fueled renewed interest in and demand for Sharia-compliant products and practice.

    Central to Islamic banking and finance is an understanding of the importance of risk sharing as part of raising capital and the avoidance of riba (usury) and gharar (risk or uncertainty). (To see more on risk, read Determining Risk And The Risk Pyramid and Personalizing Risk Tolerance.) [Compare Sharia notions with what rules here, the privatization of gain and “socialization” of loss, risk and externalities… not a pretty sight.]

    Islamic law views lending with interest payments as a relationship that favors the lender, who charges interest at the expense of the borrower. Because Islamic law views money as a measuring tool for value and not an ‘asset’ in itself, it requires that one should not be able to receive income from money (for example, interest or anything that has the genus of money) alone. Deemed riba (literally an increase or growth), such practice is proscribed under Islamic law (haram, which means prohibited) as it is considered usurious and exploitative. By contrast, Islamic banking exists to further the socio-economic goals of Islam.

    Accordingly, Sharia-compliant finance (halal, which means permitted) consists of profit banking in which the financial institution shares in the profit and loss of the enterprise that it underwrites. Of equal importance is the concept of gharar. Defined as risk or uncertainty, in a financial context it refers to the sale of items whose existence is not certain. Examples of gharar would be forms of insurance, such as the purchase of premiums to insure against something that may or may not occur or derivatives used to hedge against possible outcomes. (To read more about insurance or hedges, see A Beginner’s Guide To Hedging, Understand Your Insurance Contract and Exploring Advanced Insurance Contract Fundamentals.)

    The equity financing of companies is permissible, as long as those companies are not engaged in restricted types of business – such as the production of alcohol, pornography or weaponry – and only certain financial ratios meet specified guidelines.

    [emphasis added] link to

    But we “JudeoChristians,” who per our holy texts used to benefit from something called “Jubilee,” link to as a way to keep debt from becoming slavery, would all have our heads explode if all the soaring idiotic genius of monetization and securitization and derivitization and financialization of EVERYthing were to be, you know, “against the law.” Which law is now, you know, written by and for the very people who are supposed to be “regulated” by the Delaware corporation law and the Uniform Commercial Code and the bankruptcy code (especially as relates to discharges of consumer and student and medical debt) and “securities” law, and foreclosure law that no longer often requires the bank to even prove that it owns the note before throwing you into the street, and all that…

    For those who construct their truth from selected bits of serially edited text from the Bible to match their hateful dark dreams, here’s a place to extract and misappropriate some salient quotes: link to


  3. Religion’s appeal to millions of people throughout the ages has been due to the fact that it speaks of “transcendental, sublime, heavenly, spiritual and higher” issues to which instinctively most people aspire. However, as A. N. Wilson, the novelist and theologian turned agnostic, has pointed out: “Religion is the tragedy of mankind. It appeals to all that is noblest, purest, loftiest in the human spirit, and yet there scarcely exists a religion which has not been responsible for wars, tyrannies and the suppression of the truth.” This is why it is absolutely necessary to be on our guards when someone, especially a politician, speaks of religion and wishes to use it for purposes that are not religious.

    Religion belongs to the private domain, and while people are entitled to believe in whatever they wish, no matter how mistaken, they have no right to mix it with politics and push it on others. This is why US Constitution with amazing farsightedness decreed a separation of church and state. Whenever a politician speaks about prayer, humble repentance, intended purpose and such like he/she should be told to get on with his job of running the state; in the same way that whenever a cleric, a rabbi or a mullah wants to interfere in the affair of the state he (mainly he) should be told to go back to his church, synagogue or mosque. We have seen many examples of the tragedy of mixing religion and politics throughout the Middle Ages, and still see many examples of it in Iran, Israel, among the Taliban and sadly even in the United States and elsewhere.

Comments are closed.