Howard Jones,

You are absolutely right that "...the sharia laws of Islam are based not only on the Qur'an and sayings of the Prophet, but on how these have been interpreted over the ages. It is in these interpretations that differences arise." However, the differences that have arisen in this manner are not the differences which define fundamentalists versus modernists. The differences you refer to are those which define,for example, the differences between Sunni and Shia Muslims, or between various sub-groups (Twelvers, Sufis, etc.)

I also agree whole-heartedly that the most important question is about how we reconcile religious beliefs with the laws and norms of our society when they conflict. You ask some very interesting questions: "Should we allow some people to break the law because it conflicts with their own beliefs, or are some laws not considered important enough to matter? If the latter, should people then be allowed to break them for reasons other than religion? If they are not that important, should they be law in the first place? If a Muslim, or a Christian, or a Jedi Knight for that matter, feels that for religious reasons their children should not attend music lessons, should a Flatearther be allowed to withdraw their children from Geography lessons? Should a Creationist withdraw from Biology lessons? Where should we draw the line?"

I would say that legislators should minimize conflict between the law and individual conscience by maximizing liberty. In 1917, American law sent many conscientious objectors to prison because they refused to fight in W.W.I. In subsequent wars, members of the "peace churches" were allowed to serve in non-combat roles. Currently, there is no draft in the U.S. Those who wish to may become join the military. Those who do not wish to join (for whatever reason) don't have to join. I like that.

Currently there is a conflict between American law and Rastafarian practice in regard to marijuana. If marijuana use were legal, there would be no conflict.

Holmes County, Ohio, has the largest Amish population anywhere in the world. As you know, the Amish have distinctive ideas about many things, including the education of their children, and thus there is great potential for conflict with the state. The solution in Holmes County is that the Amish pay their property taxes and maintain a separate Amish public system, with Amish teachers.

I am a young-earth creationist. The public school curricula in the U.S. teach that young-earth creationism is false. I do not wish to subject my children to indoctrination in ideas which I believe are false. That is one reason we home-school. We are free to choose, and have chosen, a curriculum that we believe is true. Other families make different choices. They have liberty and so do we.

Where should we draw the line? The government should enforce Maybury's Laws (contract law - "Do all you have agreed to do" and common law - "Do not encroach on other persons or their property.") The law should include only that which is truly necessary to achieve those ends. Obviously, we are a long way from this ideal and, in my opinion, movement toward this end should be done gradually. A good starting place would be to stop passing MORE laws. If we have muddled along for all these centuries without a particular law, it seems likely that we don't really need it. If we don't really need it, then it diminishes our liberty without good cause.

Kent