August 31, 2009
An Open Letter to Judge Daniel Dawson Regarding the Rifqa Bary Case
Herbert London
The Honorable Judge Daniel Dawson
Justice Center
2000 E. Michigan Street
Orlando, FL 32806-4941
To The Honorable Judge Dawson:
The First Amendment speaks plainly and directly. Citizens of the United States are free to pursue their religious beliefs or, if they so choose, are free to ignore religious belief. That freedom is embedded in our way of life; it is not coincidental that religious liberty is mentioned before freedom of speech and assembly. Moreover, the Constitution makes transparently clear that an established church will not exist in this nation.
I state the obvious because as George Orwell noted at a moment of confusion the first duty of intelligent people is the restatement of the obvious.You, sir, are obliged to consider the case of Rifqa Bary, a young woman from Ohio, who left her Muslim faith and converted to Christianity. Such conversion is common practice in the United States and is doubtless a matter of personal conviction.
However, in Ms. Bary’s case her conversion has put her life at risk. Apostasy is regarded as a capital offense in the Koran to be punished by death. Should you rule that family unification trumps religious freedom, there is the possibility Rifqa will be returned to her country of origin to face her imminent demise.
Recognizing this likely fate, she ran away from her Ohio home and parents hoping that the Constitution in her adopted country would serve as protection. That, of course, may not be the case; which, in my judgment, would not only be a tragedy for Rifqa, but a tragedy for America.
Our common law history does not impose or allow for the imposition of Sharia in the land of the free. The founders understand the need for the separation of Church and State, notwithstanding the role religion plays as a guiding hand in state related matters. But they could not and would not countenance the integration of the two as demanded by Islam.
As a consequence, this case involves more than one youthful life; it represents a defense of our Constitution and our way of life. Just as a Christian can covert to Islam; a Muslim should be free to covert to Christianity whatever her parents think and whatever the Koran indicates.
To suggest anything else is to allow Islam to be superordinated over our law and tradition. If there was ever a time to assert our beliefs and customs, this is it. Americans are increasingly unsure about what this nation stands for. But there really isn’t ambiguity about this matter. Sharia is not our custom or our law and you, sir, should not recognize it as dispositive in your legal judgment.
Rifqa’s cause should prevail because this recent immigrant is fighting for the most basic of American principles. She is our Joan of Arc and I ardently hope you will recognize the need to assert traditional jurisprudential precedent in this case.
Sincerely,
Herbert I. London
President
Hudson Institute
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Herbert London is president of Hudson Institute and professor emeritus of New YorkUniversity. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001) and America's Secular Challenge (Encounter Books).
If anything happens to this child, Judge Daniel Dawson should be charged with "accessory to murder" and spent the rest of his days in prision.
posted by: Scott
Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 08:12 AM
This judge needs to read the Koran or other books citing passages from the Koran. It's quite clear what should happen to her according to the Koran. This poor young lady is going to pay for converting whether he believes it or not. They will not make it public but I can guarantee that according to their religion her punishment should be death. Just because he is a judge doesn't mean that he has any sense or brains about him. This is a case of a judge not totally understanding exactly all parties involved in the case and the ramifications of sending this poor young lady back for mercy killing.
posted by: Mel
Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 03:10 PM
Someone said if Rifqa is killed, then Judge Daniel Dawson should be found an accessory to murder and spend the rest of his days in prison.
I disagree. I do not feel it would be fair for a judge to suffer judgment less than that which he unjustly brings upon others, and he should declare what "cruel and unusual punishment" is for himself based on what he is willing to bring upon another person.
I feel it is the utmost cowardice to bring injustice to another which one would not bring upon himself or his own loved ones. He owes more to his nation and his society than this.
And just because this man is too dull to "see any evidence of danger", does not mean this girl should die for this judge's incompetence.
If this judge has any common sense or decency, he should be looking for strong evidence of safety, not irrefutable proof of danger while blindly dismissing any obvious evidence of the danger.
posted by: Daniel J. Dick
Monday, October 19, 2009 at 04:18 PM
