Down in Austin, Texas, the legislature has in its hopper, a law to keep Islam’s sharia law from being used in Texas. Such laws have cropped up in Alabama, New Mexico, Arizona, Wyoming, Nebraska, South Dakota, Missouri, Arkansas, Florida and possibly three other states but I have not been able to identify which ones.
Oklahoma passed a constitutional amendment against sharia law. It was approved by the citizens with a seventy percent majority. A good firm majority. Unfortunately, one Islamic gentleman filed a federal lawsuit against it. Federal judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange placed an injunction then later ruled it unconstitutional. It is supposed to violate his first amendment constitutional right of freedom of religion. The federal judge decided that sharia law “lacks a legal character” and “is not law.” She thought the state amendment “conveys a message of disapproval of plaintiff’s faith and, consequently, has the effect of inhibiting plaintiff’s religion.” You know, I would have thought since her impression of sharia law was that it is religious tradition, she would have seen the state amendment as OK. This amendment would have merely re-enforced a separation of “church and state” which our federal courts like to legislate for. Ah, the workings of the minds of federal judges and sometimes state judges baffles me. I guess I just don’t understand legalese and I definitely do not understand the thinking of federal judges. I guess it is because I was taught that the majority rule, but the federal jurisprudence system likes to rule that one person can stop the rule of the majority. That concept just doesn’t seem kosher to me.
Judge Miles-LaGrange thinks sharia law is not law but religious traditions. Maybe that is the reason our state department made a statement that the U. S. government recognizes Islam as a “religion of peace.” You know, I’ve never heard our presidents say that about Hinduism or Christianity or any other religion. Why say this about Islam? Why do they get special recognition? Our Presidents Obama and Bush have both described Islam as a religion of peace. Who are they brown-nosing?
United States House of Representative Tom Tancredo entered the “Jihad Prevention Act” H. R. 6975 into the second session of the 110 congress on September 18, 2008. It was a migration bill to prevent the immigration of radical Muslims. It was sent to committee but, being not acted on, it was cleared from the books when the current congressional session started.
Why are these states and a congressional representative doing this? Could it be that in 2009, the United Kingdom had 85 government recognized sharia courts? In 2007, there was one recognized by the government. Well, 2008, the Brits approved sharia courts recognized by the government under the 1996 arbitration Act. Thus, sharia courts could be a court of arbitration. These courts were set up under an umbrella group, Muslim Arbitration Tribunal. It started small and in a year had jumped to 85 courts in several cities.
These courts are given governmental sanction to arbitrate only divorce, family law, child custody and financial contracts. Yet, one stabbing was tried in sharia court. Now, this is the part I don’t understand. Perhaps some Brit will explain it to me. The sharia courts do not follow English common law. These courts proceed under sharia law, Islamic law.
I think Islam may have a wee bit more difficultly in the good old USA. The only way I can see that they could come into the U. S. justice system would be to claim that sharia law is not a religious law but merely governmental law for civil and criminal cases. If Islam claims it is both religious and civil, it has a problem. To accept sharia courts or attorneys that use sharia law, the federal government would be recognizing and promoting a religion. Thus, for the first time since 1776, we would have a government sanctioned religion. This would make Islam happy because they feel sharia law is above the U. S. Constitution. Interestingly, if they claim it is only secular law and not religious, it will again conflict with the U S Constitution which claims it to be the highest law in the land. This must be hard for the Muslims because they think, sharia law is the highest law in the world.
Perhaps this is a good time to ruminant on this quote of Samuel Adams, “If ever the time should come when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats of government, our country will stand in the need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” October 24, 1780.
Related Articles
-
More Disgusting Behavior From ‘The Peaceful Religion’
-
Big Government Bullies The Church (If We Allow It) At A Price…
-
Who Is Responsible For The Terror Attack In Boston?
-
Why Is The Government Afraid?
-
Syria
-
Not News: Islamist Vice And Virtue Vigilantes Roam Streets Enforcing Sharia Law – News: In London
Laws against sharia are unconstitutional because they single out a single religious belief for scrutiny. We are already protected from sharia by the wall of separation between church and state, hence unlike England which has a state church, we do not mix religion and government, and will never tolerate sharia courts. As long as we maintain this separation, no theocracy, Muslim or Christian threatens our citizens.
Whether or not laws against Sharia are indeed constitutional — or not — is still to be determined; ultimately by the Supreme Court.
While you are correct relative to the government not being able to “take sides” in religion, or tell us which is a “good religion” or which is a “bad religion,” there is a theoretical difference between “religious” Sharia and “political” Sharia.
Civil liberties groups, constitutional attorneys and state governments will fight this battle all the way to the highest court in the land. Freedom of Religion (and freedom from religion) is a Constitutional guarantee; Islamic apostasy tradition and laws are not.
The Rat’s pretty sure American citizens can relax regarding any “threat” from “Christian theocracy.”
The point is that it is too specific. Its like a law against killing people with a crossbow, or a law against selling 3.75 grams of cocaine, or a law against robbing banks on tuesdays. The overriding principles are that you don’t murder, or sell drugs, or commit armed robbery.
We have separation of church and state and that is enough to keep any and all variations of religious dogma out of courts and government in general. Sharia is by definition the mixing of church and state, hence has no place in American politics or jurisprudence.
As for believing in sharia privately or teaching sharia in mosques or non-government schools, that falls under free speech and freedom of religion, so you can’t do anything about that.
3/17/11 Thursday pm CST
I am a native Texas Citizen, and Sharia Law should never be applied in Texas and/or The United States of America.
If one want’s to live under Islamic law and Culture then move to a country in middle east. Other wise become American which means changing to America ways and law.
If one comes to my home for a visit they must conduct themselves a Guest and not try to impliment they ways and like wise if I go their home I must conduct my self as a Guest.
If one moves into a home then they must adopt the laws of the home, other wise leave.
Crossposted to FreeRepublic
While most of your last comment is correct Zazu, you miss a couple of the Rat’s points:
We should all do our research before we make statements like “laws against Sharia are unconstitutional,” which is incorrect. While we certainly understand the separation of church and state issue, it’s the lack of separation of religious and political elements of Sharia that is the point of contention; on the ground and in the courts.
At least 13 states have existing or pending laws against Sharia on the books. Contrary to your initial comment, these laws don’t focus on “a single religious belief.” Because there is a political aspect of Sharia, legislation focuses on “foreign” or “international laws,” including foreign “rulings,” “decisions,” and “judgments.”
Finally, your statement “you can’t do anything about that” regarding “teaching sharia in mosques or non-government schools, that falls under free speech and freedom of religion,” in not completely true either. “Teaching” political or legal aspects of Sharia which may include inciting violence against the United States or its citizens is neither protected as free speech, nor freedom of religion.
All immigration should be halted period.