Keep your eyes on the preachers, they’re sneaky little pricks.
A ban on sharia law is legislation that would ban the application or implementation of Islamic law (sharia) in courts in any jurisdiction. In the United States, as of 2014 seven states have “banned Sharia law”, or passed some kind of ballot measure that “prohibits the states courts from considering foreign, international or religious law.” These US states include North Carolina, Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota and Tennessee.[1]
Outside of the US, sharia has become a political issue in several non-Muslim majority countries, with a petition to ban Sharia councils circulated in the United Kingdom.
United States
Legislation
In 1791, the First Amendment was adopted. Its Establishment Clause forbade Congress (and later, the states) from passing laws which adopt a state religion or favor one religion over others. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the U.S. Supreme Court explained:
The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another . . . in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State’ . . . That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.[2]
In June 2009, a family court judge in Hudson County, New Jersey denied a restraining order to a woman who testified that her husband, a Muslim, had forced her to have non-consensual sex. Judge Joseph Charles Jr. said he did not believe the man “had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault” his wife because he was acting in a way that was “consistent with his practices.” A state appeals court reversed his decision.[3] Advocates of the ban in the U.S. have cited this case as an example of the need for the ban.[4]
As of 2014 more than two dozen U.S. states have considered measures intended to restrict judges from consulting sharia law. Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, Tennessee, North Carolina, Alabama and Texas[5][6] have “banned sharia” i.e. passed foreign law bans.[1] In 2010 and 2011 more than two dozen states “considered measures to restrict judges from consulting Shariah, or foreign and religious laws more generally”.[7] As of 2013 all but 16 states have considered such a law.[1]
In November 2010, voters in Oklahoma voted overwhelmingly to approve a ballot measure to amend the state constitution to ban sharia from state courts.[8][9] The law was then updated to include all foreign or religious laws.[10] The law was challenged by an official of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. In November 2010 a federal judge ruled the law to be unconstitutional and blocked the state from putting it into effect.[11][not in citation given][12] The court found the ban had the potential to do harm to Muslims. The invalidation of a Will and testament using sharia instructions was an example.[13] That ruling and injunction were upheld by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on January 10, 2012.[14]
Missouri also passed a measure banning foreign law in 2013, but Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed the bill “because of its potential impact on international adoptions.”[1]
The last two states to “ban sharia” were North Carolina, which prohibited state judges from considering Islamic law in family cases in 2013,[15] and Alabama, where voters passed an Amendment to the State Constitution (72% to 28%) to “ban sharia” in 2014.[16]
Supporters[edit]
David Yerushalmi has been called the founder of the movement in America, and is described by the New York Times as “working with a cadre of conservative public-policy institutes and former military and intelligence officials”;[7] and to pass legislation, “a network of Tea Party and Christian groups” as well as ACT! for America.[7] According to him, the purpose of the anti-sharia movement is not to pass legislation banning sharia law in the courts, but “to get people asking this question, ‘What is Shariah?’”.[7][17]
In 2011 Republican leaders Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann publicly warned about the threat of Shariah law.[17] During the lead-up to Newt Gingrich‘s presidential campaign 2012, he described sharia law as a “mortal threat” and called for its ban throughout America.[18] Sarah Palin has been quoted as saying that if Shariah law “were to be adopted, allowed to govern in our country, it will be the downfall of America.”[7]
Some Republican members of the United States Congress endorsed a new memorandum, based on a Center for Security Policy (CSP) report, Shariah: The Threat to America, at a press conference in the U.S. Capitol.[19]
Analysis of the banning process[edit]
A distinction is made between “demonizing the Islamic faith” which is implied to be “just silliness” is not synonymous with disallowing Sharia law as evidenced by the Christian Coalition of Alabama–one of the states largest networks of conservative evangelicals. Randy Brinson, the president of the Coalition stated: “Sharia law is not going to be implemented in Alabama, it just isn’t….this is a tremendous waste of effort.” [1]
According to legal historian Sadakat Kadri, the Ban on Sharia laws notwithstanding, “the precepts of Islamic law … have judicial force in the United States already”, among Muslims who have had a dispute settled by Muslim conciliators. The 1925 Federal Arbitration Act allows Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. to use religious tribunals to arbitrate disagreements and “the judgements that result are given force of law by state and federal courts”. The statute “preempts inconsistent state legislation”, such as laws to ban Sharia.[20] For Jews, a Beth Din (Rabbinical court) in America “may not merely decide the legal rights of devout Jews; in some cases it may formally forbid believers from pursuing complaints through the secular judicial system without prior authority from a rabbi. And Muslims can also have their inheritance, business, and matrimonial disputes sorted out by Islamic scholars, who attempt to decide them according to the sharia.”[20] While the US Congress could in theory repeal the act, it could not ban arbitration by Muslims while leaving other religious conciliators free to continue their work. “Any reform would have to impact equally on all faith communities, and it is not only Muslims who would object if federal legislators presumed to do that.”[20]
DOESNT ARTICLE 9 ALREADY PROHIBIT ANY OTHER LAW EXECPT THE BILL OF RIGHTS?
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH OUR “REPRESENTATIVES” AND “SENATORS”?
IS IT ZIKA? HAS MICROCEPHALY TURNED THEM INTO FOOLS WITH A TOTAL DISREGARD FOR PERSONAL SAFETY??????
The US Constitution prohibits any other law to be used here (supremacy clause which makes the US Constitution supreme); and when other then legislation of any type that is in Pursuance of the US Constitution, per the contract that every single person SERVING WITHIN each branch and in the state and federal governments. But also there is the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution being Law – supreme Law, and highest Law in the state except in the very rate instances where the conflict then the US Constitution is supreme.
This stuff happens because people do not bother to know what our legitimate government is, what it requires from us, etc.
Its not enough to know look at how they have shattered it already with most of the Bill of Rights uninforced now. We have seen them go one by one and now the states may not trust that enforcement will come in the future so they will enact states rights and perhaps enforce it themselves, I hope.
AND “NEWT ( THE JEWISH PHILISTINE) SHOULD BE SLOW HANGED WITHOUT TRIAL. DONT BELIEVE ME? READ ONE OF THE BASTARDS BOOKS……….
Sharia law will never be imposed in the US on any significant scale, and certainly not on non-Muslims. But Zionist Jews and their gentile sycophants want Americans to think otherwise. The fearmongering about “the Muslims taking over” is part of the continued stoking of the “Clash of Civilizations” propaganda that’s been so effective since the beginning of the Zionist “War on Terror.”
What these Jews don’t want you to realize is that Jewish Supremacists have ALREADY made a lot of progress toward taking over the US. They succeeded long ago on the foreign policy front and have only gotten some pushback on aspects of their domestic agenda (e.g., gun control).
It isn’t just Jews, and likely it isn’t even Jews, with some exceptions–it is mostly Christian Zionists, and I believe this because I am surrounded by them! To the point where I have pretty much stopped going to church. Christ, not religion.
House of Commons passes anti-Islamophobia motion
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/m-103-islamophobia-motion-vote-1.4038016
Cannot say anything bad against Islam in Canuckistan or else !!
What a crock.
Noahide Laws, if anything.
I like that last quote.
The fact that he had to address it to the “Privileged” means there wasn’t anymore freedom back then that there is now.
Half of your quotes come from people who called themselves “lawyers.”
Joel Barlow– lawyer
Alexander Hamilton– lawyer
Hell, the guy that shot Alexander Hamilton was a lawyer.
John Adams– lawyer
Holy sh!t. I hate to tell you this.
Daniel Webster?– lawyer
And if George Washington wasn’t a lawyer, then why is there a university law school named after him?
“Tench received his education in the Philadelphia schools and intended to study law, but his father determined to make him a merchant,”
OOOOPPPSSS!
I think you’ve been hornswoggled.
Duped, perhaps.
I fail to see how any of these so called founders actually founded anything worth keeping except their own titles and their own riches.
“Whooo, your all free now. So build these bricks for a half penny a day.”
Damn lovely.
You know what?
F!@k you Cal.
Who blows out a Giantor of a comment and then f–king deletes it like a damn pansy.
My response is to your no longer existent comment and if this were for real I’d shoot your pinky finger off for f–king with me like this.
I didn’t delete it. Not sure what happened. It said I had it up here twice.
So why are you in moderation for my comment? I am sorry for that, but again, I am not sure what happened.
I get my doors kicked in for my comments about arresting and prosecuting those who serve within our governments, and a few other things, why would what one could say to me in words, and/or bans bother me or stop me from speaking?
Yes, they WERE lawyers, but dropped from the bar when they went against the King. Many lost everything, they all put everything on the line for this concept we call America and self-government; and they had a lot to lose. Some lost all, including their lives. It is okay to not like them, but make sure of what the facts are behind their actions. They put a lot on the line so that we and ours could be free, and WE screwed it up, nor do we fix it.
I believe in the US Constitution enough to take an Oath to support and defend it, and it will be what I do until we either win our legitimate government back or I die. Do not confuse that with believing in the cr_p we have serving within our government, because I believe that every last one of them down to the gardeners/cooks/housekeeping must be replace because NONE of them kept their required Oaths.
John Adams wrote to Abigail April 26, 1777 and said: “Is it not intolerable, that the opening Spring, which I should enjoy with my Wife and Children upon my little Farm, should pass away, and laugh at me, for laboring, Day after Day, and Month after Month, in a Conclave, Where neither Taste, nor Fancy, nor Reason, nor Passion, nor Appetite can be gratified?
Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good Use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.”
Thomas Paine: “THOSE who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it. The event of yesterday was one of those kind of alarms which is just sufficient to rouse us to duty, without being of consequence enough to depress our fortitude. It is not a field of a few acres of ground, but a cause, that we are defending, and whether we defeat the enemy in one battle, or by degrees, the consequences will be the same.”
“Many lost everything, they all put everything on the line for this concept we call America and self-government; ”
Who were these many? Many lawyers?
Who were these many lawyers who lost everything? How is it I have never heard of these Lawyers’s sufferings?
How many lawyers suffered?
Were these lawyers starving?
Were these lawyers fighting the power and condemned to ignominy?
WHO WERE THESE HORRIFICALLY SUFFERING LAWYERS WHO DIED ON THE BATTLEFIELDS?
I wanna know.
You got some names?
Was Esquire jewy mcjewface riding across the landscape and KERPLOW! BOI OI OING!!
Poor jewy. He never stood a chance.
John Adams was a lawyer!
And as far as Thomas Paine goes, The jews used him and they still do to this very day.
“I believe in the US Constitution enough to take an Oath to support and defend it,…”
SERIOUSLY?????
HOW many times has it been reiterated REPEATEDLY on this site that the Constitution is a BROKEN CONTRACT THAT CAN’T BE FIXED, RENDERING IT NULL & VOID?????
Trenchers are only interested in fighting for ONE LEGITIMATE DOCUMENT – THE BILL OF RIGHTS!
In other words… F%&K THE CONSTITUTION!
And you consider yourself intelligent… and INFORMED?
Oh great.
Now I’m in moderation.
Thanks Cal