The Thomas More Law Center has filed a lawsuit claiming that the federal government is violating the First Amendment’s ban on establishment of religion by rescuing the giant insurer American International Group because, as one sliver of the broad range of business it does around the globe, AIG offers “Sharia-compliant” insurance products (also called “takaful”) structured to avoid the payment of interest and thus keep from violating Islamic religious law. First Amendment authority Eugene Volokh is scathing, if in a diplomatic way, about the lawsuit’s defects, diagnosing it as based on a kind of super-expansive Brennanite separationist theory, assuming that it is based on any coherent theory at all.
Dis-interest-ed insurance
The fact is that offering some products that are of special appeal to Muslims does not amount to supporting Islam any more than offering a wider choice of meatless entrees during Lent amounts to supporting Christianity. Given the action’s likely unsuccess in court, it’s hard to see what point it could have other than to stick a symbolic thumb in the eye of devout believers in Islam. First Amendment blogger Marc Randazza finds the suit “patently frivolous and based more in a hostility toward Islam than a true belief in a separation of church and state.”
What is the Thomas More Law Center? Established by Domino’s Pizza magnate and big-time conservative Catholic Tom Monaghan, it bills itself as “a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan,” and on its website as “The Sword and Shield for People of Faith”, though not to be sure faith of the Muslim variety; it “defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life.” The center’s attorneys “have appeared regularly on national radio and television programs including the FOX News Channel (O’Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, FOX & Friends), MSNBC (Dan Abrams), the Dr. Laura Show, O’Reilly Radio Factor, and hundreds of Christian radio networks.” In its best-known case so far, it suffered a solid defeat defending the introduction of “Intelligent Design” theory in the schools of Dover, Pennsylvania. Despite that setback, it apparently remains quite the little beehive of litigation, “handling over 259 legal matters in 43 different states“. One wonders if this new suit is typical of the quality of those actions.
Financial products geared toward particular kinds of believers are a classic capitalist adaptation to market demand, and you’d think “People of Faith” would be better served by encouraging the law to accommodate such products rather than stamp them out. Earlier this year I wrote for the Manhattan Institute’s magazine City Journal about a pending lawsuit in which the National Fair Housing Alliance is suing the GuideOne Mutual Insurance Company because the company offers an optional policy rider called “FaithGuard” that covers various risks associated with church participation and volunteering. The fair housing group claims that by offering a line of coverage that is unlikely to offer much value to religious nonbelievers, the insurer is somehow engaging in religious discrimination in violation of federal law. I found that position absurd, destructive, and indeed an entrenchment on the legitimate interests of religious believers. Is the Thomas More lawsuit any less so?
P.S. Welcome readers of the Washington Post’s “Political Browser“, which picked this post in its selection of “What’s Good on the Web”. Several readers, including Not a Potted Plant, point out that Islam-friendly financial products commonly are set up to avoid investments in enterprises involved in alcohol, sexuality, and the like, which you’d think would make a group like Thomas More at least a little more sympathetic to them. And one of Prawfsblawg’s small contingent of conservative contributors, Prof. Rick Esenberg of Marquette, writes: “There are certain cases that you just know are going nowhere. This is one of them.”
Robert Spencer has a lot more about this.
The Thomas More Law Center is wrong on this matter (unless, as alleged in the SANE article Spencer quotes, AIG is indeed owned by the US government), but I’m ambivalent. In order to get a neutral compromise on Xtianity vs. Islam issues, the overreaching of one side may need to be balanced against the other. So it may prove useful to someone who has said, “Islamic cab drivers should be fired if they refuse to carry fares who have alcoholic beverages in violation of company policy” and “British health workers should be allowed to have lunch at their desks even during Ramadan” to also be able to say “But I was apalled by that silly AIG lawsuit”. Presto, neutrality. (I feel much the same way about the British National Party suing the government of Algeria for reparations for slavery – it gives anti-reparations people a chance to point out that they are against reparation for “both” kinds of slavery.)
The whole thing goes to show in democratic politics, extremism begets extremism. It’s too bad, but it’s not like too many people advocate monarchy these days.
Pingback: Lawsuit: bailing out AIG unlawfully promotes Islam
This is terrible lawsuit for Catholics. Suppose an investment firm wants to offer a mutual fund in which the companies invested therein don’t support (financially) things like abortion, homosexuality, etc. This would give devout Catholics an investment opportunity that aligns with their beliefs. Should such a company be on the receiving end of a bailout, does the Thomas More Law Center really want People United for Separation of Church and State claiming (in court!) that this is a violation of the constitution? Careful what you wish for…
“sharia-compliant” basically means financial products/services that are without “interest”. This is as much a “Christian” value as it is Islamic. (I think Jesus was against usury too) If having alternative products and services benefits society regardless of religion—it is a good thing.
…AIG offers “Sharia-compliant” insurance products (also called “takaful”) structured to avoid the payment of interest and thus keep from violating Islamic religious law.
Probably, yet another reason this sloppy company went down the tubes.
Still, the lawsuit is silly, almost as silly as the bailout itself.
This is the first I’d heard of this lawsuit. Makes me sigh a bit, not least of all because “Islamic banking” makes a great deal of sense to a lot of people. Simply put – they are dealing with REAL money, and not a derivatives market that defies explanation.
I am not sure that this is such a bad idea from the perspective of the Thomas More Law Center. This could very well be a suit that they want to lose. Losing this suit would remove one justification that bailed-out companies (or government regulators) might use to shut down products aimed at Christians. More importantly, this could force people who might support such moves on separation of church and state grounds to take positions that allow such products when the politics of it are different (i.e. when they are protecting a “beleagered minority religion” rather than the self-identified religion of most Americans).
Some lawsuits are worth filing and losing because they establish a legal principle in a more favorable set of factual circumstances. I do not know if this is ethical but when has that stopped lawyers.
This is a good lesson on why going to the federal government for a bailout of taxpayers money is a bad idea. If taxpayers are going to prop you up then you got to abide by federal rules. I doubt this suit will get very far but I like the premise.
“I am not sure that this is such a bad idea from the perspective of the Thomas More Law Center. This could very well be a suit that they want to lose.”
It’s bound to get headlines, which, no doubt, will increase the donations to the TMLC. So, win or lose, they get their $$$.
I’ve never heard of SANE before, but I think they deserve a hearing.
From the article Spencer quotes:
“An important element of Shariah-compliant financing is a form of obligatory charitable contribution called zakat, which is a religious tax for assisting those that “struggle [jihad] for Allah.” The amount of this tax is between 2.5% and 20%, depending upon the source of the wealth. The zakat religious tax is used to financially support Islamic “charities,” some of which have ties to terrorist organizations that are hostile to the United States and all other “infidels,” which includes Christians and Jews.”
Sounds like it may be about a little more than interest rates.
Sorry but Spencer is an idiot. There are 2 types of charity in Islam—one is the obligatory(once a year) charity and the other is the voluntary(anytime) charity. It is charity—giving of money of ones free-will—to those who are in need. Thus—this money can be given to any type of charity. The obligatory charity is based on the “savings” or unused monies of a person (not on total income)and must be used only for the needy and not for “administrative” expenses of a charitable organization.
Islamic sharia or Jewish Halaka laws are meant to create an ethical and moral environment for people. (both sharia and halaka mean “path”) –however one does not need a particular religion to be moral and ethical. Non-religious people can also be moral, ethical people and can benefit from (secular) laws that promote these values.
Thanks for replying; you are the first. I confess that I’m completely at a loss for how you disagree with the SANE article’s contention, @kay.
SANE says the obligatory charity has to go those who struggle for Allah; you say it must be used only for the needy.
SANE says the amount of the obligatory tax varies from 2.5% to 20%; you say it is based on savings/unused monies rather than total income.
I don’t see any obvious bone of contention. I suppose there may be some argument over whether zakat is used to support charities with ties to terrorist organizations … is that what you intended to refute?
Pingback: Vie de Malchance - Resisting the Scourge of Northern Occupation. » AIG Raspberries
Pingback: Dodgeblogium » Bailout musings…
Pingback: AIG bailout promotes Islam, lawsuit says - OC Watchdog - OCRegister.com
Pingback: Can Islam be modernized? - Page 4 - Political Forum