Let's hope this attempt to preserve Constitutional freedoms against Sharia encroachment doesn't run afoul of a clueless, politically correct judge, as did the attempt in Oklahoma. "Wyoming legislation targets Islamic, international law," from the Casper Star-Tribune, January 20:
CASPER, Wyo. -- Wyoming judges wouldn't be allowed to consider Islamic law or international law when making rulings, under a proposed state constitutional amendment introduced this week.To date, no Wyoming court rulings have been based on Islamic law, or Shariah. But state Rep. Gerald Gay, R-Casper, said his proposed constitutional amendment, House Joint Resolution 8, is meant as a "pre-emptive strike" to ensure judges don't rely on Shariah in cases involving, for example, arranged marriages, "honor killings" or usury cases.
Gay said while he didn't expect the proposed amendment to pass this year, he predicted support for the proposal would increase in future years.
Last year, Oklahoma passed a constitutional amendment banning state courts from considering or using international law or Shariah law. But a federal judge subsequently blocked that amendment on the grounds that it "fosters an excessive government entanglement with religion."
States' amendments and measures to invalidate shari'a law are interesting and indicate at least two things worthy of a bit of optimism:
1. Somebody in these states do recognize the stealth jihad creeping into our judicial system. I do wonder what these people who support putting the brakes on the stealth jihad have been reading.
2. Those who oppose these amendments and measures are tipping their hands that they really do want to establish Islamic supremacism instead of assimilating into American culture.
The second point is one that I often make in discussions with those less aware of what's going on with the stealth jihad. You should see these people's jaws hit the ground when I assail them with incontrovertible facts!
There is an old Sufi saying - "There is no law in the desert saying you cannot eat rocks."
I say there is no reason not to take precautions.
Preventative medicine is the best kind...No Sharia...
Meaningless political grand-standing.
I find it funny that the same people who advocate Sharia Law have no plans to move to a Muslim country that practices Sharia Law.
So name one good thing about Sharia Law.
Would the founders and commanders of the marines and navy that stormed the shores of Tripoli have allowed the mass migration of the barbary pirates to America ?
muslims today are no different than barbary pirates of the past..
NO DIFFERENCE... zero,nada,zilch...
So what changed in America...?
Progressivism and Universalism though many decades of indoctrination have obscured the core evil of islam...
I'm just glad some people are turning against historical obfuscation...
I'm very happy that 'universalism that includes islam' is being revealed as the Big Lie that it is..
You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that I favor Sharia low.
I don't.
But these proposed state Constitutional amendments are nothing but chances for state law-makers to get some media attention.
If a bit of Jewish, French, or Sharia law violates US law, then it can't and won't be enforced by US courts. If it doesn't violate US law, then who gives a crap?
I guess this is some Gay advocacy I can support.
I hope they have read Yerushalmi's brief on the Oklahoma failure.
Wyoming is the "Forever West" state - WTG!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZof9PSEB7k
OT: a few miles away at the Sundance Film Festival. "Three's Company: The Drama, James Franco plays Jack-John Ritter. A female friend plays Janet, and a male friend with a dark beard and mustache not quite covered by a blond wig is Chrissie-Suzanne Somers. Franco and friends got the rights to remake the first three episodes of the Seventies sitcom. Neighbor Larry is played by Franco’s pal Vince Jolivet with a wig. The real Larry–actor Richard Kline–was flown in and shown episode 1 in the art installation. He and his wife were a little taken aback at a few of the modern dialogue changes. But most of the dialogue was right from the original show. It’s just spoken seriously, without a laugh track. “Suddenly you see how desperate the characters were,” Kline said. The original Larry, of course, never let his genitalia become exposed, even if briefly."
http://www.showbiz411.com/2011/01/22/threes-company-as-slightly-risque-drama
No harm, no foul.
If there is nothing wrong with banning Sharia then let's ban it. One law for all!
Interesting that the court decision in Oklahoma seems to indicate that Sharia is bound so tightly to Islam as to be undifferentiated.
Therefore, Islam is incompatible with secular democracy.
Didn't they appeal that stupid Oklahoma judge's ruling to the circuit court of appeals?
Explain yourself. Are you standing on principle? What principle do you uphold? I hear you saying "no harm done, no big deal". However, isn't there a principle of governance, of sovereignty, or of something, involved in this issue? If not, say so. For all we know, you might be simply an anarchist of sorts. I don't know. Tell me where you're coming from. It's a free country. Free and open discussion of ideas and opinions.
One minor correction for you: In the U.S. laws are not enforced by the courts, as you aver. Laws are enforced by the executive of the government. The courts judge cases of infraction of law. No big deal, but clarity of exposition is important in these matters.
Give Me Doughnuts wrote:
If a bit of Jewish, French, or Sharia law violates US law, then it can't and won't be enforced by US courts. If it doesn't violate US law, then who gives a crap?
................................
I only wish things were so clear-cut, GMD. It's not as though we will just wake up some morning and—out of the blue—find that we have stonings in the streets.
No—it will begin with "cultural sensitivity", and allowance of "Shari'ah compliant" finance, and multicultural "family law", and Shari'ah-tinged jury instructions where there is a Muslim defendant. Things can go downhill pretty quickly under such conditions.
Remember the case in New Jersey where the Muslim accused of marital rape had the judge take into account that this was no crime under Shari'ah law? Sure, the ruling was shot down, but we cannot always count on that happening. And that judge is still on the bench.
We have seen the entire concept of Shari'ah law gain respectability in many parts of the West.
You wrote:
But these proposed state Constitutional amendments are nothing but chances for state law-makers to get some media attention.
................................
I say, "grandstand away!" If someone wants to get some publicity and political mileage out of such proposals, more power to them.
Why keep adding in "international" laws with "sharia?" International treaties passed by the U.S. Senate take precedence over state laws.
There has been an idea floating around for a couple years that constitutions are so difficult to amend that they are practically unamendable. This false idea, whenever it occurs, has to be shot down -- because it's a seriously anti-democratic idea, if it becomes accepted as common wisdom. Amending the various constitutions is by design not easy, but not at all impossible. They are supposed to be amended from time to time. That way, the people have the say so.
Isn't the definition of "grandstanding" to make an ostentatious clamor about some triviality merely to impress an audience? Is implemention of Shariah something trivial? And do we not like to know what our elected representatives are doing?
HI, eliasx - Good point. Actually, the writer of the Wyoming Star Tribune article made a mistake. He should have said "foreign laws" and not "international law". These two things are not the same, and for practical purposes international law would be treaties made by the federal govt., as you say.
This is a case of religious law being considered in a court case. For example a Muslim man with four wives would want sharia considered if he were being prosecuted for bigamy.
No one, not even Muslims, should be ruled by Sharia "law".
mormons are testing Canada now in BC..
the argument is that forcing pairs amounts to forcing Christianity.. The Crown is presenting historical evidence that many other civilizations that helped to make up western thought believed in the fairness of pairs as well...
If polygamy wins in Canada.. I expect pedophiles will be next in line to challenge the Trudeau Charter should a line not be drawn..
interestingly, both abominations are halal...
(btw, as nice as most mormons are, they are still living a lie)
The number one reason to preemptively ban Sharia in Wyoming can be summed up in four words:
Drive-through liquor stores.
After watching the outcome of many court cases, I think ALL states must protect themselves from the bad judgement of their judges.
"mormons are testing Canada now in BC"
These are mormon apostates who are illegal in the US and excommunicated from the mainstream LDS church.
I am curious to know why you call this pre emptive move political grandstanding. Do you not think the US Constitution worth protection? OR do you prefer that people in the west continue to take our liberty for granted, and keep our guards down while stealth jihad continues unchecked.
Sharia enforces/codifies Islam, a supremacist religion, thus it is the imposition and enforcement of one religion on everyone. That is exactly what the Establishment Clause (First Amendment prohibition against government establishment of religion) is meant to prevent, the governmental establishment of one religion over any other. (It was originally meant to stop a Christian domination from being imposed over any other, but it also applies to all religions.) The U.S. Government is thus prevented from legally enforcing Catholic dogmas (e.g., forcing people to attend church on Sunday) or Hindu dogmas (e.g., forcing people to place incense/food in front of Hindu gods) or Jehovah Witness dogmas (e.g., requiring a certain amount of door-to-door witnessing), etc., etc. Under U.S. law, Muslims have every right to believe how they wish, but because our Constitution guarantees equality they have no right to privilege or plunder or imposition of Islam/Sharia onto others.
While I agree that it should be banned there shouldn't be any reason to. The constitution does not allow any parallel laws or foreign laws. Why have another lAw when they will not uphold it anyway? We have immigration laws but what good are they when obama and holder and others ignore them? Just enforce the ones we have now. Peace