To the editor: It is not correct to say that sharia, or Islamic law, is “extremely unlikely” to become part of American jurisprudence because, as unidentified “legal experts” opined, “there is no mechanism by which any foreign criminal or civil code can trump U.S. laws.” (“Anti-Sharia rallies around the U.S. denounce Islam while stoking concerns among Muslim groups,” June 10)
The quickest avenue to sharia taking hold here is the effort of the Trump administration, working alongside some faith groups, to carve out exceptions to U.S. laws allowing religious adherents to enforce their beliefs on people who do not accept them, claiming this as a matter of their 1st Amendment right.
Once this concept is adopted by the Supreme Court, there is no reason why Muslim adherents of sharia could not apply and enforce their religious laws in their communities as well as among those with whom they have contact.
If people can cite their religion as a reason to refuse to serve gays or to deny certain medical therapies to people, what’s to stop Muslims from practicing in an analogous way under their interpretation of Islam?
Glen Mowrer, Santa Barbara
To the editor: Call me an alarmist if you must, but I disagree with your assessment.
The victims of these attacks are just as dead or mutilated regardless of whether these events are “isolated” or are part of an epidemic.
Obviously, The Times’ interpretation of something “taking root” is different than mine, and I imagine many other Americans agree with me. This might explain why people are protesting sharia.
David Arthur, Temecula