Earlier today I was looking at some of the outbound links on my blog and I saw that there had been a link to a website that deals with the portrayals of Muslims and the fear and violence that is often directed to Muslims (and even those, like Sikhs, who are falsely thought to be Muslim).  From time to time I write about matters relating to Islam, but it is not a particularly heavy focus of mine.  In looking back at my posts, I realized that the link to the pro-Muslim loonwatch.com came from a post I wrote on the law of jealous husbands, in which I had a respectful conversation with a Muslim who had a high degree of respect for Sharia and whose interpretations of it were not so far removed from my own interpretations of biblical law.  In stark contrast to that respectful conversation, in looking at the post I was reminded that a great many people, especially those who view God’s law (and God and Christianity) as sexist, were not particularly respectful in their conversations with me.  As someone who values respect and is willing to respect the perspectives and approaches of others, I consider it rather telling that an educated and conservative Muslim would be someone I would prefer to have a conversation with about the connections between biblical law and Sharia and the importance of properly interpreting laws from the past for the present-day than I would with the average contemporary progressive Westerner, whose assumptions are that biblical law and Sharia are entirely corrupt and obsolete and unworthy of even the slightest respect whatsoever.

I was struck as well by the website’s commentary that terrorists and would-be terrorists were found to be not very knowledgeable about Islam.  I did not find this to be particularly surprising.  After all, those people who are the most violent, of whatever political and religious worldview they happen to espouse, are not particularly knowledgeable about the roots of their worldview and its connection with others.  For example, without ever having been especially interested in Islam, I have found myself researching various Muslim festivals as well as the question of the interpretation of biblical law and prophecy in ways that relate to Islam, as well as engaging in the study of hadiths and their pedigree as aspects of comparative religion.  In being more knowledgeable about this biblical corpus of law, I have ended up becoming more aware of the larger context of religious law and the ways in which laws and their interpretation can present both opportunities for understanding and barriers to the relationship between people, especially where there are wide differences of opinion and belief system between them.  Sometimes we find out that people we thought ourselves to be very different from are not so apart after all, and sometimes we find out that people we would think of as being very close to us are in fact very different from us and very hostile.  But we only find out in the course of conversation and communication.

When there is a problem in the world, it is a common knee-jerk reaction to believe that what happened is a fault of law that that new laws need to be passed.  A terrorist attack against synagogues or mosques or churches encourage people to believe that there need to be tougher laws against hate crimes.  Attacks with guns lead people to opine about the need for stricter gun control laws, and so on and so forth.  Our first instinct when we are faced with a problem or event is the belief that the coercive power of the state needs to be directed against those who threaten our safety and well-being.  Additionally, identifying the identity of the person responsible for the violence tends to create stigmas for whatever group these people belong to.  An attack on a marathon by Muslims raises hostility against Muslims, while an attack on a black church by a white leads to concerns about the connection between racism and the politics of nationalism.  Actions by individuals are viewed as being conspiratorial false flags by some, and by equally conspiratorial acts of hatred by widespread and well-funded groups of people.  What we view as hate speech depends a great deal on our identity–what I view as obvious truth may be viewed by others as hate speech that deserves to be suppressed by confiscatory lawsuits, censorship by social media companies, or imprisonment, and vice versa with regards to others.

But if we look harder, we will realize that the problem of laws is also a problem of men (and women).  Often it is not the law that is defective but the enforcement of said laws that are defective and selective.  If, for example, the first amendment is viewed as protecting the religious practices of some but not of others, or the speech of some people or groups of people but not as others, then we are not dealing so much with the problem of laws but the problem of people who do not enforce or interpret those laws in a just fashion.  And where people are unjust in their interpretation of laws, the imposition of more laws is not a sufficient solution.  After all, there is a great deal of discretion that is allowed in the application and enforcement of laws.  The people we choose to enforce the law against or the situations where we look to use a particular law are rather telling.  We may have laws against adultery but selectively enforce those laws only against some people and not against others.  We may pay lip service to particular goals in the passage of a law but use it to enforce something entirely different and contrary to our laws, such as creating affordable care acts that make health care less affordable by mandating certain coverage of politically important matters.

Where laws are defective, we must first look to the defectiveness of the people who make and interpret such law before attacking the foundation of the law itself.  In a great many cases, we would do better with a lot less law, giving less freedom on the part of police and other coercive agents to act in society, if we could only ensure that the interpretation of law was made more just.  Having fewer laws but laws that were more consistently enforced would increase our respect for the rule of law and might help us to recognize the way that good character is vital in the development of a more just society.  Likewise, having a respect for law in general, even if we recognize that we are not perfect at obeying it and that human beings will tend to be unjust in enforcing the law as authorities, will allow us to be more respectful of others.  And in a situation like ours where respect is not a common currency, we would all do well to recognize that a great deal of what troubles us about the behavior of others, and a great deal of what troubles others about us, is not so much our ideals but the way that those ideals are lived out in everyday behavior in our respect (or lack thereof) of the dignity and well-being of those who are on the other side of various lines and boundaries.  To know that trust is a key element of our problems, sadly, does not make it easier to build trust with those whom we must deal with, for one can know what problems exist without being able to know how to overcome them.  But at least it can focus our attention in the right direction.