What do you think about the Ohio teenager who became a Christian and later fled to Florida because she thinks her Muslim parents will kill her? The case is tied up in the courts as the parents are trying to get her back. They deny that they would kill her. The media is playing down the teaching in Islamic law that Muslims who change religion should, indeed, be killed, a position the Islamic chaplain at Harvard has affirmed. That doesn’t mean these particular parents would do that. Still, the case pits two causes that cultural conservatives believe in strongly against each other: parental rights vs. religious freedom. But can’t the young woman still hold to her faith even in her parents’ household until she is of an age to leave? Unless, of course, they would kill her, in which case the real issue is her safety. See Mollie Hemingway for the background and rather skewed media coverage.
Parental rights vs. religious freedom
Previous: Obama’s chaplain
Next: Human devolution
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
well. I think we should seriously explore this: only in modern times has the head of the household not had the rights of life and death over his family members.
on what basis do we as a society claim that we are right in the last few hundred years and all other societies before us were wrong?
why should not a head of household in the form of a pregnant woman, then have the “right” to kill her unborn child?
You are right Dr Vieth, there is an intersection between parental rights and religious freedom and there is also an intersection between this issue and abortion as well that we would be unwise not to address.
Good discussion points, fws.
It seems the issue here is not so much one of whether it is wrong to murder one’s children (it was for non-modern societies as well), but what the appropriate reaction of the government is in light of parental authority over their children’s lives.
The more difficult (and interesting) case first: Why not recognize these kind of rights to pregnant women in potential abortion cases? In many situations, of course, there is the issue that women are not legitimately heads of their households. Historically, the mother would never have such rights over the deaths of her children. Nevertheless, there are plenty of singles who have abandoned their fathers (or vice versa), who live on their own, who don’t have even common-law spouses, etc. One could plausibly argue for legitimate headship in such cases. On the other hand, one may be sure that a man is always also involved somehow, and so one could also argue that the rights still remain with him.
Nevertheless, the better approach, I think, is that the rights of a father over his children have never been floating about as absolutes in a vacuum. Parents have such rights in order that their children may flourish, and they are answerable for their exercise of those rights. To whom? To God, certainly, but what about government? While we may argue over the appropriate extent of government’s reach, most agree that it has a responsibility to provide some measure of justice and physical protection for those under its authority. If a parent’s abuse of their own rights extends to murdering their offspring, I think a solid case can be made for governmental intervention.
As for the case of this Christian convert, the free exercise of religion was never intended to include violations of the natural law. We ought not allow honor-killings any more than we do other forms of human sacrifice. The question in this case is whether the threat is credible enough for the government to act. Again, while we may disagree over whether this threat is credible, or what it takes to make a threat credible enough for the government to act, we can probably all agree that the government is not responsible for avoiding all possibility of harm coming to its citizens. The mere possibility that a parent might murder their child is therefore insufficient grounds. I do not know enough specifics of this case to make a good judgment on credibility.
What of the fourth commandment? Should she remain at home to honor her father and mother even at the risk of death? Is it possible to honor them without honoring their beliefs since Islam is contrary to salvation through Christ? The Holy Scriptures say that we will suffer much on account of Christ, would not this be such a situation? Finally, is this not a prelude to the kind of questions, conflicts, issues that will arise as Islam increases? Christianity and Islam will not coexist in peace, take a look at their history together. It is one that is long and often very disturbing.
#2 matt c. “The question in this case is whether the threat is credible enough for the government to act.”
my questions hinge on where “government” is vested. good post matt. I was hoping someone would be nuanced enough to be equipped to respond.
“s for the case of this Christian convert, the free exercise of religion was never intended to include violations of the natural law.”
“natural law” for a Lutheran christian is merely what fallen man can deduce logically using his free will and reason to discover the laws written in man´s heart. I don´t find aquinas´ theories very helpful. it seems that they lead one away from the lutheran idea of sola scriptura and the lutheran concept of 3rd use of the law.
From my involvement with the fate of a Muslim who converted to Christianity, and some reading on the subject, I also thought that the Quran teaches that anyone who converts from Islam must be killed. I had occasion to ask John S. Loum, Director, Ethnic Immigrant Institute of Theology, African Immigrant Ministry at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, about this. He is very knowledgeable on this subject and reads the Quran in Arabic. He told me that, according to the Quran, mercy is the rule in all dealings with religion. The idea of killing converts is part of some authorities’ interpretation of the Quran (Tafsir). I quick check on the Internet confirmed this view.
Peace and Joy,
George A. Marquart
There may be a very legitimate reason this young lady ran away from her family and fears for her life. I had a friend in college who had to flee her home country to avoid being killed by her family for converting to Christianity. She left everything behind and had to start over many times because her family kept trying to find her. I do not claim to know what is in the hearts of men (nor teenage girls), but her fear may very well be real. And this situation needs to be treated very seriously.
George the linked article would suggest that it is a majority view among Muslims that killing is required. Here is the relevant language:
In Islamic law (sharia), the consensus view is that a male apostate must be put to death unless he suffers from a mental disorder or converted under duress, for example, due to an imminent danger of being killed. A female apostate must be either executed, according to Shafi’i, Maliki, and Hanbali schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), or imprisoned until she reverts to Islam as advocated by the Sunni Hanafi school and by Shi’a scholars.
A minority of medieval Islamic jurists … held that apostasy carries no legal punishment … these minority opinions have not found broad acceptance among the majority of Islamic scholars.
Joe, you are absolutely right. My point is that the Quran does not teach this.
John Loum’s point was that if we ever have occasion to speak to a Muslim about this question, we should point that out. There is no other valid argument in Islam against this position.
Peace and Joy,
George
George,
The problem is that the Quran teaches both positions (see Q 8:12 and 9:5, for example). There are verses advocating pluralism as well as verses advocating violent religious intolerance. While liberal Muslims living in the west usually ignore the latter, the traditional view is that the later intolerant verses abrogate the earlier pluralistic ones.
fws @ 4
Thanks. As a Lutheran Christian, I more or less agree with your definition of natural law (what fallen man can figure out on his own from the obscured inscription on his heart). Nevertheless, the context was government rather than theology. If we have any inclination towards religious pluralism among our decision makers, the natural law is about the best basis of value that we can hope for.
This is getting off topic, but I do actually think Lutherans seriously undervalue the utility of natural law on third use questions (it is, of course, of no value in soteriology except with respect to conviction of sin). As any good Lutheran knows, the Bible is not primarily a guide to right-living. Moral reasoning involving the natural law helps us to bridge the gaps between the far-from-exhaustive exhortations of Scripture and life’s daily moral questions. It is very true that abusing the natural law leads to legalism. What is often overlooked, however, is that abusing Sola Scriptura also leads to an obsession with the letter of the law. I don’t know how many young Christians I’ve heard argue that while adultery and lust are wrong because Jesus said so, premarital sex is fine because those specific words never show up in the Bible. We need to beware of both dangers, otherwise we tend to embrace one to avoid the other.
#10 Matt c
It occurred to me reading your post, that I am not clear on what you mean by natural law.
The process that the Augsburg confession describes is described thussly:
Article XVIII: Of Free Will.
“…man’s will has liberty to choose civil righteousness… to work things subject to reason…. in works of this life….”Good” I call those works which spring from the good in nature, such as, willing to labor in the field, to eat and drink, to have a friend, to clothe oneself, to build a house, to marry a wife, to raise cattle, to learn divers useful arts, or whatsoever good 6]pertains to this life. For all of these things are not without dependence on the providence of God; yea, of Him and through Him they are and have their being ….nature is able in a manner to do the outward work, 9] (for it is able to keep the hands from theft and murder,)
…But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man 3] receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2:14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received 4] through the Word. …not that it is thereby capable, without God, either to begin, or, at least, to complete aught in things pertaining to God . [we cannot] without the Holy Ghost, by the power of nature alone, we are able to love God above all things; also to do the commandments of God as touching “the substance of the act.” For, although yet it cannot produce the inward motions, such as the fear of God, trust in God, chastity, patience, etc.
Article XX: Of Good Works.
…15] But, although this doctrine is despised by the inexperienced, nevertheless God-fearing and anxious consciences find by experience that it brings the greatest consolation, because consciences cannot be set at rest through any works, but only by faith, when they take the sure ground that for Christ’s sake they have a reconciled God. As Paul teaches Rom. 5:1: 16]Being justified by faith, we have peace with God. 17] This whole doctrine is to be referred to that conflict of the terrified conscience, neither can it be understood apart from that conflict….
35] Hence it may be readily seen that this doctrine is not to be charged with prohibiting good works, but rather the more to be commended, because it shows how we are enabled to do good works. 36] For without faith human nature can in no wise do the works of the First or of the Second Commandment. 37] Without faith it does not call upon God, nor expect anything from God, nor bear the cross, but seeks, and trusts in, man’s help. 38] And thus, when there is no faith and trust in God all manner of lusts and human devices rule in the heart. 39] Wherefore Christ said, John 15:5: Without Me ye can do nothing; 40] and the Church sings:
Lacking Thy divine favor,
There is nothing found in man,
Naught in him is harmless.
In short this says (if i have it right)
(1) that sanctification=faith=a weak start at keeping the first table of the law, and
(2) man can pretty much keep the second table outwardly, and that this outward righteousness is the same outward righteousness produced as a fruit of sanctification only done without faith and a keeping of the first table of the law.
I would really hesitate to tell those young women that some activity is a sin without being able to point them to something in revealed scripture that names that activity as sin. I think then Matt C, that the cure would be worse than the disease you are trying to treat.
My approach in similar situations looks like this: people here tell me prostitution is ok because it is victimless and both participants are willing.
I make the point that I would want better for the woman if she were my daughter or mother or sister, and I would also want more for the john if he were my father, son or brother. This lacks the virtue of an iron-clad “God says it is wrong” but has perhaps the better virtue of inviting people to exercise a truly moral thought process, that of the golden rule, which Christ our Lord says is a summary of the second table. This is not really an application of natural law I don´t think, not knowing, apart from what T Aquinas calls natural law.
#10 Matt C
“What is often overlooked, however, is that abusing Sola Scriptura also leads to an obsession with the letter of the law.”
Matt I am deeply troubled by that statement the more I think about it. You are trying to say that “Sola Scriptura” is not the problem but rather the “abuse” of it.
But really, your example seems, for noble reasons, to X out the “sola” in “sola scriptura” by elevation, if I understand you rightly, natural law, however you define what that is, to the level of “thus says the Lord!”.
I am deeply bothered by this approach Matt. This, IF I am understanding you right, is not Lutheran.
PLEASE feel to correct any misundertstanding I am having about what your views are!
Thanks for your patience.