Posted on 03/17/2011 5:01:10 PM PDT by TheConservativeCitizen
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 murder 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.
Thanks for posting. Good article.
“The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets, the believers our soldiers.”
Stop base camp/barracks/mosque building.
Life, liberty and the pursuit and destruction of totalitarians.
Fislam
Can’t understand why we have to write new laws in order to stop a foreign law from being used in the country. Whose country is it?
Er, never mind.
It’s sad that this should even be an issue, that anyone should have to pass, or even think about passing, such a law. We already have laws. They are the indisputable laws of the land. No other laws can even be considered.
Good article. Thanks. What goes in the UK appears to crop up here within a few years. Who is really running our country?
Thanks TheConservativeCitizen.
Come to think of it, most liberals interpret our Constitution in a similar fashion.
Welcome to our future. It is happening now.
Well, she's correct in this but incomplete in her reasoning. Their 'religion' is antithetical to the constitution and everything else American. Allowing them to fully practice their 'religion' would require submission to Islam for the rest of us.
This is no surprise, that were having this crap cram down our throats because our elected officials are treasonous swine. And the federal and state judiciary are as conflicted as a ham sandwich at a kosher wedding.
You got that almost right. Specter cited Scottish law but it was his reason to not remove Clinton from office. Clinton had already been impeached by the House. It is the Senates job to decide whether or not to remove him from office.
The 1st amendment does say “ ... nor prevent the free exercise thereof ... “ concerning religion but that does not give a religion the right to break the law. The Mormons down in Texas got busted for child rape although they claimed to be acting within their religion. If a religion practiced human sacrifice there would be no debate about it.
Sharia blends government and religion in a way that makes it hard to separate them but that does not require us to allow them to break the law or to establish their own courts. In for a dime, in for a dollar.
>Can’t understand why we have to write new laws in order to stop a foreign law from being used in the country. Whose country is it?
The China/Mexico conglomerate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.