The Straw Dog of Sharia—and the Real Religious Threat to Texas Law

By LONNIE KING

If you’re watching political ads in Texas this election cycle, you’ve probably noticed a familiar warning being dusted off yet again:

“I’ve been fighting Sharia law.”

• It’s meant to sound urgent.
• It’s meant to sound brave.
• And it’s meant to trigger fear.

But it’s also deeply dishonest.

There is no movement in Texas—legislative, judicial, or grassroots—working to impose Sharia law on the state. None. No bills. No courts. No shadow legal system quietly replacing the Texas Constitution. The idea functions as a straw dog: an invented threat that can be loudly “defeated” for applause in a partisan primary.

That doesn’t make it harmless. It makes it manipulative.

What this argument is — and is not

This is not an argument for Sharia law. It is not a defense of religious legal systems of any kind. And it is certainly not a call to replace secular law with religious doctrine—Islamic, Christian, or otherwise.

In fact, the argument is the opposite: no religion should overtly influence state law.

Not Christianity. Not Islam. Not any faith tradition.

The threat we’re warned about—and the one we ignore

When candidates warn ominously about “Muslim extremists,” they’re usually pointing to something abstract, distant, and hypothetical — a fear without fingerprints.

But the consequences of that rhetoric are anything but abstract.

By framing “Muslim” itself as the danger category, rather than identifying a specific, real extremist movement, these campaigns place suspicion on anyone who practices the Muslim faith, regardless of their beliefs, politics, or behavior.

Ordinary Texans — neighbors, doctors, engineers, small-business owners, parents — become suspect by association.

At best, Muslim Texans are treated as second-class citizens, expected to constantly prove that they are “not like the ones you’re afraid of.” At worst, they become targets of fear that has been deliberately cultivated, turning political messaging into social permission for hostility or violence.

This is not harmless rhetoric. It doesn’t stay inside campaign ads. It reshapes how real people are seen and treated.

What makes this especially troubling is the selective concern.

While some candidates loudly campaign against an abstract Muslim threat that does not exist in Texas law or governance, they remain silent about the very real and visible influence of Christian nationalism on state policy right now — including figures like Chip Roy, who speak forcefully about one while ignoring the other.

Christian nationalism is not hypothetical

Christian nationalist ideology — the belief that Texas (and America) should be governed according to a specific version of Christianity — is not theoretical. It shows up in very real, very visible ways:

• Laws justified explicitly with religious language rather than civic reasoning
• Public officials framing policy as enforcement of “biblical values”
• Efforts to weaken the boundary between church and state under the banner of “religious freedom”
• The push to mandate the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom, regardless of the beliefs of students or families
• A growing assumption that Christian identity itself confers moral authority in public life

That last point matters more than some want to admit. When the state requires religious texts to be displayed in public classrooms, it stops protecting religious freedom and starts endorsing one faith over all others — including over those who practice no faith at all.

This is not an attack on Christianity as a religion. It is a recognition of what happens when any religion moves from persuasion to power.

A pluralistic state requires neutral law

Texas is home to Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, and people still figuring it out. The promise of American law has never been that religion disappears—but that no one’s faith becomes someone else’s law.

The system only works if the law applies equally to everyone, regardless of belief. When government elevates one religious framework over others, it stops being neutral and starts sorting citizens by creed.

That’s not freedom. That’s favoritism.

The constitutional line that matters

You cannot be logically pro–U.S. Constitution — a document that explicitly prohibits the establishment of state religion — and also support religious law in civil governance, no matter which religion is being proposed. Those positions are fundamentally incompatible.

Being anti-Sharia but pro-Mosaic law isn’t constitutionalism. It’s selective theology with political power behind it.

That line isn’t blurry. It’s foundational.

The real question for voters

The question Texans should be asking isn’t “Who’s fighting Sharia?”

It’s:

• Who respects the separation of church and state?
• Who believes the law should apply equally to everyone?
• Who understands that religious liberty includes the right not to live under someone else’s theology?

The real danger to Texas isn’t an imaginary Islamic takeover.

It’s the quiet normalization of religious power in civil law — whoever happens to be holding it.