It seems to me that the incorporation of Christian religious teachings into U.S. law is justified by some variation of the following two arguments:

A) The historical origins and demographic predominance of Christians in the U.S. explain why Christian principles are the basis for U.S. law.

B) U.S. law is based on Christianity because Christianity is the true religion.

(I know that the atheistic response would be: “Never accommodate law to the practice of any religion.” But this is so foreign to democratic and constitutional principles that it borders on being anti-American.)

If one elects Principle B as the reason for the Christianity reflected in the U.S. legal code, then adopting Sharia under any form is a retrograde measure. If you are irrevocably right, what need is there of change? Of course, the same argument B is used in Islamic countries to deny Christian or secular interpretations of law.

If, on the other hand, A is the principle invoked, then the issue to Sharia or not to Sharia is more dicey. Principle A supposes evolution, change and relativity to public law. Unlike clerical elites, government is not supposed to support a religious solution to problems, but to accommodate the ethical presumptions of the majority. To a secular government, each citizen is equal: there is no legitimate preference for Christians over Muslims or Jews, nor for Protestants over Catholics. However, over time, both the ethical presumptions and the demographic majority may change. Invoking Principle A theoretically suggests that if and when Muslims form the majority in any jurisdiction, then Sharia law can be sensibly reflected in the public legal code.

As a goy in a city with many Jews, I learned how at a very local level this is implemented in New York. Jews, I was told, may not push the buttons of an elevator on the Sabbath. But for good order, the city pays for the installation of special programming so that a New York elevator automatically stops at each floor. The taxpayer may pay a bit more for this engineering, but the city benefits overall by bending itself to the needs of the population. In a similar way, certain parking restrictions are lifted on Catholic holy days of obligation, like December 8th, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. Some religious people who are against swearing in an oath are allowed to make a “solemn promise.” Atheists who do not believe in God, need not invoke the Diety when testifying in a courtroom.

With those examples in mind, might a U.S. jurisdiction accommodate itself to Islamic law? My answer would not be absolute: while I can bend to local circumstances, there are some laws which can never be broken. Issues like public health, marriage laws, and the death by beheading demand civic control over religious strictures. Moreover, we should not pretend that this is the first time history has confronted a problem such as this, even if it is somewhat new to the U.S. Medieval Spain offers examples of what to do and what not to do in accommodating three or more faiths in these delicate matters. The one constant remains clear: making and obeying laws is a matter of constant growth and maturity.