[indiscernible] [inaudible] focusing on islamic constitutionalism, sharia and u. S. Constitution. Nate walker, executive director of an Organization Called 1791 delegates and its an Organization Made up of legal scholars and practitioners who help companies, educational institutions, nonprofits, deal with issues of religious liberty, literacy and education. From there ill jump in and ill start with nate. Nate, could you walk us through just a brief history of religious liberty in the united states, where did it come from and then what are we seeing today in terms of an almost redefinition of religious liberty being what, from my perspective used to be thought of as a shield. Start with nate. Nate, could you walk us through a brief history of religious liberty in the united states, where did it come from are we seeing today in terms of an almost redefinition of religious liberty being what, from my be thought used to of as a shield. The constitution and the constitution, the used as a shield for which the majority would not impose its now on the minority but almost being wielded as a sword by the majority. I packed a lot in there but if you could it a shot. Nate first of all, its a great all to be with you especially in this time where of muslims in america is the number one issue of our rty time. This is the most pressing issue trace back to the founding era where you have leaders, like roger williams, john adams, jefferson, whom, in their articulate religious liberty rights for muslims, even times, and it was ctually the diversity within christianities that led to the creation of the constitution. There was no religious test for office and yet now were seeing saw with roy moore, hallenging eller sons legitimacy. Were even seeing it with dianne Bernie Sanders questioning of judges based on their religion. Office gious test for was a fundamental value based on the iversity of those at table at the time, and then, of ourse, in 1791 you get the bill of rights which gives you the free exercise clause and the establishment clause. These are two principles that make up the one right of liberty. But what weve seen over time, n the judicial system, religious minorities would bring up cases before the courts, and many, many bring up cases but have a low return in their wins. Has never been a native american jew or sic that ever won a u. S. Supreme exercise case. Never. Their first in 2015. You remember samantha and holt in those cases about abercrombie and the bearded case, these are landmark in American History, but when you look at protestant speaking as a m minister who trained in a york, ian seminary in new you will see that as a rotestant, there is a de facto protestant establishment in the united states. Historically been very discriminatory toward catholics, hindus, muslims, absolutely with the genocide of so with ericans, and that, whenever protestants would bring forward cases, they would cases p a low number of but have high, high rewards. Of the hese are some patterns that were seeing in all egal system that we have to work against. Turning to you, and your work on islamic constitutionallism nd this myth, the sharia boogieman is coming and trying to take over the judicial systems of places like kansas and these antisharia laws and bills being introduced law by ally signed into governors, who are now senior officials in the administration, you could walk us through that. Is the genesis of we thought maybe we overcame them but now that threat has reintroduced. Well, we cant blame trump. How many sharia have heard of the antisharia legislation movement . Okay. Ost people know a little bit about it or maybe a lot about it but this has been going on since 2010. Its theorizing about what was the motivation. Their ll you what ostensible reasoning is. This is a fact check based on summer, 120 s antisharia bills have been ntroduced in 42 states since 2010. In 2017 alone, 13 states bills. Uced antisharia two of them, texas and arkansas, are passing them. Through the system in wisconsin right now. Who is doing this . Whats going on . Some of the organizations you of, you might want to watch, act for america is one of them. Merican Freedom Law Center is another one. Center for security and policy, policy. N public neutral. Some of the names of these organization have been seen in various trump related advisory this started before trump. He just adopted some of their rhetoric. Given the other rhetoric hes had to say about muslims. Whats going on . Is this is to protect american citizens Constitutional Rights against infiltration and incursion of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines. First versions of these legislation, actually use the sharia in legislation. That was struck down in federal of t as being targeting religion. So they have rewritten them to this neutral foreign law sort of you know, it clearly, you can see the motivation for what they mean when they say that if you just at the advocacy behind it. Of the dea here, some characters have been behind this have said, well, this is the new jihad. This is the new civilization aljihad. Way muslims are planning to take over, idea that they want to take over the world wherever wont necessarily e through physical violent jihad. This is a protection against the trojan horse. Some early versions were sharia, which clearly again, is a Constitutional Rights problem. Cases they arehe citing where there is a problem, most of the rhetoric in public, there is no h, problem, nothing going on. These crazy arguments, oh, parts michigan sunday sharia law, thats all false but where are they getting the idea there is infiltration. It has to do with some of the areas ive studied in family law muslims come into a family law situation, some are inheritance laws, most marriage cases where they are arguing based on their islamic marriage rights that they would like the muslims come into a accommodat are doing the marital dissolution, for example, so the uslims in the audience are familiar with the idea of a part of acquired aspect of a lieutenant age colonel is the wife is given something of value, it could be oney, it could be property, that the husband owes the wife either at the time of the marriage or delayed till the time of divorce. Of the family law cases, this is part of the litigation intended, has as it already been given, does it accommodated against the value of the house, for example, so this is the cases they to say, see, secular e can judges are enforcing haria law and thats unacceptable from an american perspective. There is one case, and that was had basically m misunderstood a cultural defense. A woman wanted a restraining her husband for rape, marital rape and the trial judge misunderstood the cultural defense there. Said, oh, i have a right to islam, didnt give her the restraining order, that went up on appeal, so for watching this, saying, the system works. This is not a situation where slamic law is taking over the basic individual rights of citizens but nefrlz thats an cited. E that gets so i have some interesting, as an academic of constitutional law i think its quite think about what is the role of an accommodation secular ous values in courts, for example . Is that something that were multireligious society want to do if does have it to be mutually concepted between if they go to arbitration, for example . As very much in the Orthodox Jewish community . That okay . Are there limits to that . How far do we want that to go . Are very interesting questions but thats not the conversation were having as a community, as a country, were conversation of sharia is trying to attack us and they re trying to sneak in so you might have remembered in the summer, in june, there were these big marches against shar reyeah. In a happen every once while and the population is starting to fear just the word infiltrating d kind of thing. So ill say a little bit more and then ill stop and well have a conversation. First reaction to this legislation was, it doesnt anyway because my work in the area of religious legal court casesn family was, the judges, they were all over the map for one thing lawbased so state some state judges accommodated these requests and other didnt them had the basic principle that anything requested that was against American Public policy, or basic civil rights, would not be accommodated. That was standard. O this argument that somehow accommodating religious law is sacrificing our on public good, seemed irrelevant, so my first reaction was, okay, who cares, yes, they be passing these laws but its not going to have any family effect until a lawyer family law lawyer of mine, a friend of mine in new this is this ell, kansas case. Heres the language of the legislation. Basically that a state accommodate any foreign law that has any law that would affected the parties by the ruling or decision the fundamental religious rights grant under the constitution. You cant accommodate any law vial lets principles of the u. S. Constitution and it applies to arbitration as well, state judge. There is this kansas state from 2012 where so the woman had a 650,000 in her marriage nice work, and or the dad of the woman, i dont had a nyway, so she 650,000. The court denied this citing the legislation that had just been passed in kansas and interestingly they cited to an michigan case where the court had said, there is something about islamic divorce unfair to women. Which it is, men, so therefore its gender unequal michigan case is wouldnt consider any claims about islamic law in this court. He interesting thing is, the michigan case happened before the antisharia legislation, so that the s weird kansas court would cite their case and the michigan case at time. Ame heres the thing. We wont know all the cases as they go forward. Cases dont go into a appellate situation where its published. A lot of people, who knows who giving pressured into up based on the legislation thats been passed in their they will never talk about out loud. It will be many years before we get a landscape of whats going but whats happening is that some judges are looking at antisharia legislation with a stereotype of hat sharia is, that it somehow is fundamentally bad for women. Thats the underlying, one of he many underlying messages of sharia in the country, that picks heres the question i there ret tal question. If there is any aspect of a legal system thats bad for omen does that mean you dont accommodate any part of that legal system . I submit that would be the case for u. S. Law, right . Accommodate any aspect of it and the kinds of things they are denying are which are better for women than if she were toned up with a Community Property arrangement, right . Community property actually goes gainst a lot of islamic values this a womans property is her own property and cant be owned by anybody else. Always not true that islamic law is always leaves a woman worse off than the law, so the idea that any aspect of this foreign law to our values is irrelevant when youre looking at the particular aspect that the woman or the man is trying to be accommodated. So anyway, thats the point, and change ersation has to in the public about what is sharia because the public conversation is that its undamentally bad for people especially for women. I have a couple of suggestions about how we can change our even slichls talk about sharia in a very limited education way. Insult. Mean that as an i mean, its unfair that now the average muslim is supposed to levels of ghest islamic jurisprudence just to engage in a conversation with clerk,local Grocery Store answers,y, i have some ill give later. Well get into the solutions at the end. Proponents of the legislation, its not some kind f infiltration of the judicial system, in the few cases where it has come up its very narrow actually mily law and divorce law setting, where courts and judges actually have some ld latitude, in states, in how to, you know, distribute the assets of a right . E, so nate, i want i want you to the a little bit about irony, about the forces behind antisharia laws which cases, know, in many rotestant, white, evangelical christian groups, they are cited sissons as being some of his advisers in the latest guidelinesof justice on religious exemptions for a whole host of federal regulation and laws. So just in a nutshell these new guidelines in some instances, saying, government is its okay to discriminate if you religious objection, even though we have certain types of antidiscrimination laws. Want you to talk little bit about the irony and then to key currently hats before the Supreme Court which is bringing religions liberty forefront of a potential landmark decision. The scene for t that case quickly and what are some of the implications. Ore importantly, i want you to talk about this, is why should american muslims care. First thing we have to look at, the big picture, and there is something appening to america that no other human civilization has experienced as far as i know in history. That is, in 2012, protestants, or the first time in american minority. Became a that means were a nation of minorities. No generation, no government has the had the burden or challenge of governing a nation of religious minorities. O when were talking about these various things, the trend fear of as ef and will of power and of majority status. To say s another way it, in the hobby lobby case, if if that owner or muslim brought forward to the u. S. Saying it is my religious belief that i should to pay for red contraception to an insurance female t would go to my employees, for contraception, he would have never won. Because he was muslim, right . But because he was christian, legitimate claim, so this is the irony that were acing, and this is also the irony coming before the Supreme Court with the masterpiece case. Know, this is the question of can a baker, or case, a florist, or an or a stationery shop participate in the same sex couples wedding by selling them a cake or having stationery or having their wedding be on their Community Farm or something. In these cases, they of a verylose because simple legal trend, and it has with race. In the 1970s, bob jones to admit black students. N 1987, they came before the u. S. Supreme court and they said, we have a religious enter racial dating allowrriage and were not any of our students have the married housing if they are in and terracial relationship therefore, because of our religious beliefs we dont elieve we should uphold public accommodation laws, or nondiscrimination laws in higher education. The u. S. Supreme court said no. Interest compelling to eradicate racial education and in therefore you do have to do that, if youre going to receive any federal aid. Said, okay. Were not going to take federal aid and they went off the grid truly became a private organization. That belief tained until 2000. They had a theological awakening permitted interracial population. Before the uestion court now is, can a business required to uphold nondiscrimination laws in public have a religious view in saying, i will not serve context le in that because of my views of marriage. This in part c to because i have many conservative members and friends who view my partner and i, in a very way than we see ourselves as equal citizens and i know that they dont see that. Ves as is it true that my religious views can trump rights . Vil your Constitutional Rights . Me, the simple answer is in the constitution. If that second clause of its the second clause of establishment and thats simply the cake baker can to the church and say im cakes o sell my wedding to the church, and there will be purchase people to those, the business is not harmed, but, there is not this partner and i walking into that wedding cake then being refused service. And do i go to another baker . They refuse service again . Either we have nondiscrimination dont. We either we have equal protection dont. He law or we and we can have religious protect that baker and his conscience by allowing him to engage in those activities in the church or in mosque, right . And so i think thats where the is, where as you were mentioning religious liberty is to cause as a sword another harm. This is that Common Ground liberty is ae true shield. Why should we care . Week getting this ready for this presentation, and conversation, i said this is hard for american muslims because its very easy o get distracted by the substance of the litigation having to do with gay marriage, nd so muslims may have an instinct those who are conservative muslims who believe gay marriage about not being a muslim package, instinctively may feel aligned baker, and there is a danger in that, and that is that the precedence of law that could verystablished easily, given your description of who wins and who loses, robably very easily would be used against muslims. So an individual cake baker may with a elieve islam threat to the united states. Its my religious belief that i reject this in any possible form and refuse any number of services. So heres what i want to say. E muslims do not have a full deep understanding of our own complexity of how sharia has in our history. Ts not the case that we believe the government should enforce my particular interpretation of my religious practice. And this is a problem that comes from a contemporary nationstate phenomenon. Istorically, precolonial muslim societies had two types of raw in them. The interpretation of scripture that leads to how do you live a muslim life . That was defenders inherently because the individual scholar acknowledged hat they were fallible in that process. Thats why we have multiple schools of thought but that existedhe only law that in these societies. There was another one that was that were lated by the articulated. Not a particular selection of individual ones imposed on everyone. Historyiling in our own if we insist that the state is supposed to be enforcing my islam on version of anybody. So this is why it is actually quite an easy step to say, wait, i may not want that in my life but do i really believe my version of my personal practice how to live in gods way should be what the state enforces . Decided that as racial diversity, religious diversity, Sexual Orientation a public good, its not a violation to accommodate if i choose to live here. Idea of sharia is they live under the law of the land that law is preventing you from doing something mandatory, right . You from praying or forcing you to drink, you know, you accommodate. To his is, i think we need go back. How do we understand sharia . E have to understand sharia ic. Elf is not monolith law sound like something the government does. Thats how we think of law. Good translation of shar sharia. The of it are enforced by state and other parts are my personal practice. Dont get distracted by the dont identify it with the