Isn't it interesting how when Christianity is at issue, the Establishment clause that is most prominent, but when Islam is the issue, it is the Free Exercise clause that is most prominent.

Do you think anyone would have opposed legislation to declare that a Christian Theocracy is contrary to the Constitution?

Many commentators on this site have commented that PC thinking is the real underlying cause of the problem, and that Jihad could not prevail without such vulnerability.

I think the underlying cause is shallow thinking and an apparent inability of many people to use reason to analyze problems. What is PC thinking but a shorthand to short circuit rational thought?

Few can rationally argue that violence is not rooted in the Koran. Instead, such a suggestion creates an emotional reaction because it is against the PC script being embedded in our collective brains.

Posted by: JSobieski at October 9, 2007 9:40 AM

Someone send this ignoramus, Watt, a copy of Robert's book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades).

Remember the patriotic slogan "don't tread on me"?

Now it's more like "lay down and die".

Posted by: Shy Guy at October 9, 2007 9:45 AM

To a large extent it is the drip drip drip of muslim immigration.

In England, Enock Powell at one time talked about the 'rivers of blood' in regards to inveterate immigration; he was hounded out of office, a decent man mischaracterized by the politically correct media at that time.

And now it is possible that his warning about the results of the immigration he warned about will come to pass in England and in Europe.

Fortunately the MSM is no longer as powerful as it was (that leftist Cronkite leaning over, looking into the TV camera, just after we had won the Tet offensive, and saying we had lost - what buggery, what a fool).

Now we have projected sharia and islamists buying up Western stock exchanges. If ever there was a need for awareness, it is now.

Posted by: dgene at October 9, 2007 9:45 AM

Melvin Watt's
email submit form page

Enlighten him.

Ethelred

Posted by: Ethelred at October 9, 2007 9:48 AM

OK, the HTML link did not work. Here is the URL:

http://www.watt.house.gov/IQform.asp

Go forth and enlighten him.

E

Posted by: Ethelred at October 9, 2007 9:51 AM

The aforesaid ignoramus obviously was not reading about Ontario, Canada's huge struggle to prevent the government allowing sharia law, their argument being "it would reduce the backlog in the court system over family matters" I read this "explanation" in a different article(ROFLMAO - that's a good one! - my quote)

It was due to the efforts of Muslim women, who did not WANT sharia law here to oppress them:

http://www.nosharia.com/Press%20relase%20on%20Sept11,%202005.htm

“…no religious arbitration in Ontario…
one law for all Ontarians.", says Premier McGuinty

TORONTO – “I got a call about 4 pm Sunday afternoon while I was having dinner with my family, I thought the caller was joking, but it was true … no-faith based arbitration, I am so happy.” said Ms. Homa Arjomand, Coordinator of the International Campaign Against Sharia Court in Canada.

On Sunday Premier McGuinty was interviewed by the national news agency and made the following statements:

"I've come to the conclusion that the debate has gone on long enough," he said. "There will be no Shariah law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians."

McGuinty said religious arbitrations "threaten our common ground," and promised his Liberal government would introduce legislation "as soon as possible" to outlaw them in Ontario. (To read the full story please click here):

http://www.canada.com/maritimes/news/story.html?id=4adaefa2-e576-4620-af87-cc70572dda44

Thank you to the activists - “Most of all, I want to thank all the people who worked on the campaign. This victory was the result of the hard work of thousands of activists, across Ontario, Canada and Europe who volunteered their time and skills to help bring an end to Sharia courts in Canada,” said Ms. Arjomand, “…to each and everyone of them I want to say thank you, we did this together.”

Sharia is a global struggle. “Together we have defeated the forces of ‘Political Islam’ in Ontario, but this is just the first step.”, added Ms. Arjomand. “We must not stop here, we need to continue the fight and assist people in other countries who live under the burdens of Sharia and Political Islam…countries such as England, India, Iran, Iraq, Netherlands and Nigeria… the people there are counting on us.”

About Homa Arjomand and the Campaign

Homa Arjomand is the Coordinator of the International Campaign Against Sharia Court in Canada. She started her campaign in Toronto in October 2003 with a handful of supporters, and today it has grown to a coalition of 87 organizations from 14 countries with over a thousand activists. Homa is a Toronto based transitional counselor and was a human rights activist in Iran until she was forced to flee in 1989.

Media Contact: Ms. Homa Arjomand 416-737-9500.

Email: homawpi@rogers.com Web site: www.nosharia.com

Posted by: j_not_a at October 9, 2007 9:54 AM

The Democrats and the Left don’t believe there is a “War on Terror”. To them, we have a few disenfranchised malcontents to deal with through the usual law enforcement channels. Likewise they do not believe in a Jihad against the West. Therefore they view Islam is just like Christianity, except with Muhammad instead of Jesus (pbuh). To believe otherwise would invalidate liberal foreign policy concepts.

Therefore, hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Their minds are closed.

Ironically the Left, being strong supporters of atheism and homosexuality, will be the first to loose their heads when I am living in Dhimmitude.

Posted by: Clay Marley at October 9, 2007 10:03 AM

Ethelred, I hope I'm not repeating anyone. The e-mail links for congress do not work for people outside the district, unless you are willing to try to use a fake zip code.

Based on Mr Watt's answer, he obvoiusly does not underastand the difference between Islam and sharia. Dumba$$.

Posted by: Pelayo at October 9, 2007 10:04 AM

I will send Rep. Watt a paper copy of my essay contrasting the principles of our Constitution to those found in sharia.

On line version is here:
http://a-plague-on-both-houses.blogspot.com/2007/06/one-cannot-serve-two-masters.html

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at October 9, 2007 10:07 AM

3. The question was about the establishing of Islamic Sharia law in any state or territory of the U.S. Watt is now on record as believing that it cannot be opposed. Is he then willing to see the stoning of adulterers and the amputation of thieves' hands in Islamic enclaves in the U.S., in the name of freedom of religion?

Posted by Robert

To say nothing of the murder of apostates and critics of islam or its "prophet", special taxes for non-moslems, and different criminal penalties for moslems and non-moslems.
If Mr. Watt is for absolute freedom of religion, as he seems to say, then he must accept human sacrifice. Many religions have called for this, including the pre-Columbian Aztec (on a mass scale) and the ancient pagan religions, such as the worship of Ba'al, and the Hindu cult of Kali. Wouldn't all that diversity be wonderful? Just what one wants for one's children and grandchildren. Of course, islam itself calls for human sacrifice. Fortunately, the Aztec practices were stamped out by the Spaniards and smallpox, while islam goes on and on. Allah and Mohammed have claimed many times as many lives as Huitzilopochtli and Tlaloc ever did.

Posted by: ebonystone at October 9, 2007 10:09 AM

Mel Watt is a symptom of our times.

Posted by: TheOmegaMan at October 9, 2007 10:09 AM

As a southern black man, Representative Watt should be reminded of this:

Separate but equal is a term used to describe a system of segregation that justifies giving different groups of people separate facilities or services with the claim that each group still receives equal quality of treatment.

Posted by: PRCS at October 9, 2007 10:10 AM

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.-1st amendment.

Though I am not a lawyer, it appears clear that the constitution forbids the establishment of religion via the state and Sharia law is religion. No law obviously/expressly based in Sharia Law, Mormon law, Jewish law, Catholic law, or the religious laws of any sect may be lawfully established above the constitution anywhere in America. (And it also clear that for that reason the use of public funds, public land, etc. for accomodations that favor any one sect over another are forbidden. Foot-baths (e.g.)do not belong on public property. They belong on private property only.)

The long history of the tyranny of sectarian religion in Europe and elsewhere was the reason for the establishment clause. The constitution is intended to give equal rights to the practice of religion (as a private matter so long as it does not interfere with secular law) under the supreme law of the land (the Constitution) and the obvious establishment of Sharia law (or any other sectarian law) anywhere (public property, public streets, etc.) is already forbidden by the supreme law of the land.

The framers did not intend to drive religion from the public arena, but they did not want sectarian religion to be the law of the land. They were well aware of religious wars (100 years war in Europe, e.g.), mass murders, etc in history, in the name of belief-systems. We see this in our time with Islam.

Posted by: Frank at October 9, 2007 10:13 AM

Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch comprise one of the most indefatigable reporters of Islamofascism, Islamism, or whatever you wish to call the continued assault on Western civilization by this supremacist theology. It is a kind of Internet samizdat, and may have the same crucial role in broadcasting the true nature of Islam that the Russian kind had in helping to collapse the Soviet Union.

But I must take exception to his remark, when Spencer reported the Reason interview of Hirsi Ali, that, “She might profitably have discussed at this point those humane atheists Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, who had a bit to do with totalitarianism themselves….” I know that Mr. Spencer is a Christian, but that was a cheap shot unworthy of the character of his blog.

I write as a life-long atheist – and an Objectivist – who knows damned well that atheism should not be equated with totalitarianism, brute force, or any other species of barbarism. Atheism is not a catch-all term for amoralism, whim-worshipping, and subjectivism. From my perspective, our Christian President Bush’s take on Islam is perilous and foolhardy, especially when he hosts Ramadan dinners at the White House and asks “Americans of all faiths to reflect on the values we hold in common including love of family, gratitude to the Almighty, devotion to community, and a commitment to religious liberty.”

He ought to have had a five-minute interview with Hirsi Ali. She might have penetrated his thick head and persuaded him that Islam is indeed succeeding, especially when it can sucker the president of the U.S., and that it has no commitment to liberty but the liberty to dominate the world as the only “true” religion.

But, then again, she might have failed. From my perspective, Bush is as “dhimmi-witted” as Prince Charles of Britain, who might some day proclaim himself as “Protector of All Faiths” (and not just of “The Faith”) including Islam.

One final note: Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were “anti-Christian” only to the extent that Christianity was a “competing” theology opposed to their “worldly” manifestos. If either of them conceded the existence of God, he would probably have asserted that Nazism or Communism was “God’s will,” so swearing allegiance to Nazism or Communism had first priority.

Posted by: Hugh Kenrick at October 9, 2007 10:36 AM

I am going to send messages advocating for the same proposal as that NC constituent to my 4 elected officials in Washington - 2 Democrat Reps and 2 Rep. Sens. I will be easgerly awaiting their responses. We should all do the same across the country.

Posted by: Bess at October 9, 2007 10:39 AM

Re: "The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religious principles. Therefore, I believe that the language proposed in your email would be unconstitutional and I would not support it".

In a way, he is right that it would be unconstitutional to specify one religion's establishment as being banned since the establishment of ALL religious sect laws on public property (streets, parks, etc.), and public accommodations anywhere, is already prohibited.

The establishment of Sharia law is banned in the public arena-along with the establishment of all other sectarian religious laws. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. No exceptions. Public property, public accomodations, are governed by the constitution and must not favor religious sects or allow them to be above the supreme law of the land (the constitution). The free exercise of religion belongs only on the private person or on private property and cannot be forced on other persons generally or public property.

Posted by: Frank at October 9, 2007 10:42 AM

This twad does not realize that the foundation of islam is based on SEDITION and muslims are commanded to ONLY obey islamic laws and the instructions of their imams. There are dozens of verses in the koran stating that mohmmamad and allah supercede all other laws...that includes US laws and customs.

Islam can not be considered a religion therefore is not protected under our Bill of Rights.
Islam specifically outlaws and forbids other religions from operating and persecutes any non-muslims they detect.

How difficult is that to comprehend?

Islam must be shown it is not a religion, but a political cult whose only aim is to overthrow all non-islamic governments.

Posted by: Hungarian Crusader at October 9, 2007 10:55 AM

Here is the Constitution of the United States.

Here is the Shari'a, with its rules on:

1. The treatment of Muslims who attempt to leave Islam. see the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment; see, more generally, the idea of Freedom of Thought in the West with which the Constitution is instinct.

2. The necessity, in the long run, for Islam to dominate everywhere, and Muslims everywhere to rule. See, and make compatible with this, the American idea of "pluralism" as reflected in the Constitution.

3. See the treatment, under Islam, of all those who would criticize or, still worse, mock the figure of Muhamamd, or the contents of the Qur'an. See, and attempt to reconcile with this, the Free Speech protections in the Constitution.

4. See the treatment, under Islam, of women and non-Muslims. Attempt, if you at this point still have an ounce of desire to inflict mental torture on yourself, to reconcile the teachings of Islam on this matter, and the embodiment of those teachings in the Shari'a, with the American Constitution.

When you've attempted to render the Shari'a compatible with the American Constitution, when you've attempted, but failed, to take out from Islam, or explain away all the passages in the Qur'an and Hadith, that flatly contradict the spirit and letter of the Constitution of the United States of America (and indeed, of all the constitutions, written and unwritten, in the advanced liberal tolerant Western world), and finally given up, do something simpler, just for fun.

Square the circle.

Posted by: Hugh at October 9, 2007 10:56 AM

Lets see.... sharia (from what I know (limited) and what I've read) violates

1) The First Amendemnt; sharia interefers with freedom of speech (press, personal and right to gather)-you cannot write negative critiques of Govt, allah imposed it therefore it is good; Establishment clause-Sharia is islam, there is no separating them;
Free Exercise (as noted above)
2) The Second Amendment; although soon the Supreme Court will rule whether or not this is an individual right or a corporate right, just look at the ariminean (i know i butchered the word) genocide...
3) The Fourth Amendment; Search and siezures-I'm pretty sure dhimmis don't get a choice, its probably "Let us search your (insert place here) or die"; Privacy-(this is from the Griswold case, privacy is under what is called the "penumbra of rights")privacy exists in islam?
4) The Fifth Amendment-Grand Jury Clause-never heard of one happening in islam... i'm pretty sure they just bring you up to court as long as you have 2-3 witness (remember, in islam, 2 women equal one man, so if you can't find 2 men who witnessed a crime, then you can use 1 man and 2 women as witnesses); Self-Defeating Testifying clause-Not sure islam has the right to not put yourself into impunity; Due Process Cluase-dhimmis don't get due process, its either the will of the Govt or the will of the mod that tells the dhimmis what to do; Just Compensation Clause-excuse me while I laugh for the next half an hour.
5) The Sixth Amendment- Impartial Jury-You're a dhimmi, even if you didn't commit the crime they will probably still find you guilty rather than admit a mistake; Right to Consul-once again, not familiar with sharia, so I can't say positively that one gets this right, but i'll assume for the sake of arguement, no.
6) The Seventh Amendment- Right to Jury- do dhimmis get a jury? (once again, i'm guessing no *not sure*)
7) The Eight Amendment- Excessive Bail- Is there such a thing as bail under sharia?; Excessive fines- what about for just being a dhimmi? Cruel and Unusual punishment- (note:the SC (Supreme Court) has ruled that a punishment must be both cruel AND unusual before it can be declared unconstitutional) Cutting off a hand for theft is both a)cruel and b)unusual, it should not be condoned anywhere
8) The Ninth Amendment- (let me quote it) "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (emphasis mine)
9) The Tenth Amendment- States rights- Is there such a thing as a "state" under islam? NO there is only islam, nothing else, so there would be no States Rights under sharia
....and thats only the bill of rights....
*now for the rest of the amendments*
10)The Thirteenth Amendment- "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude...shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction" what about dhimmis?
11)The Fourteenth Amendment- Citizenship Clause- There is no citizenship under sharia, only islam; Privileges and Immunites- This clause is highly contested, so its not really worth bringing up; Due Process Clause- See #4 (this was incorporated against the states, so states had to follow what has been passed down from the Supreme Court as applying to them as well)
12) The Fifteenth Amendment- "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." [and out of the Haditha, Âl 'Imran 3:106] "On the Day when (some) faces will be whitened and (some) faces will be blackened; and as for those whose faces have been blackened, it will be said unto them: Disbelieved ye after your (profession of) belief? Then taste the punishment for that ye disbelieved"; 'nuff said
13) The Nineteenth Amendment- "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."- islam and sharia say otherwise (if their country even does vote);

So, we've managed to violated 13 of 27 amendments, with merely my little knowledge of sharia and con-law.
All would agree that we've violated some of the most important articles in the Constitution, (I,II,V,XIII,XIV, and XIX) so I don't see how sharia can be adopted at any level of Govt within this country
(and yes, I know islam, sharia and allah are all undercase. YHWH is not allah, so allah is either a) a false god (no more powerful than a wooden block) or b) worse. Being such, islam must then be a false religion, and I won't capitalize it, and lastely, sharia is inhumane, wicked and evil the only way you can reconcile the Christianity with sharia is to throw Jesus out, and that kinda destroys Christianity)

-Peter

Posted by: Peter Nielson at October 9, 2007 10:58 AM

Mel Watt, dhimmi-wit extraordinaire.

Doesn't understand that implementing Sharia Law would require the "establishment of a religion".

Instead, he gets the meaning of First Amendment completely backwards.

Typical asshat of the new millennium.

Posted by: profitsbeard at October 9, 2007 11:03 AM

Mel Watt is a reasonable man even though he is a Democrat. His objection is based on his understanding of the Constitution. He is not alarmed about the Islamic threat because he does not understand it. Most of America is the same way. It is important that you educate him about the dangers of sharia law. But please don’t paint him as an Islamic apologist or appeaser because he is not. He is a reasonable Black Democratic politician.

He is reasonable, please don't paint him as a radical. He doesn't understand sharia. Please educate him. But he is a breath of fresh air compared with most race baiting politicians.

Posted by: ThackerAgency at October 9, 2007 11:05 AM

Melvin Watt epitomizes the fools in Congress that I point a finger at this morning. Note that I wrote the following opinion piece prior to seeing the above JW article:

The Wise No Longer Lead

The fact that simpletons, lemmings and greedy maintainers of the status quo collect pay checks funded by U.S. taxpayers is a crime of monumental proportions. I, of course, can hardly scrape out a living -- I'm an honest man.

Posted by: Foehammer at October 9, 2007 11:08 AM

Just saying you are AGAINST Sharia is not enough! We are alread at war on our own soil. These people mean business and they're not going to stop until we don't have a country or Constitution left. Ban this damned "religion" of violence in the US now!

Thursday, February 08, 2007
A Proposed Constitutional Amendment
Background and justification to Amendment 28

Whereas Religion is defined as an institution dedicated to improving social conscience and promoting individual and societal spiritual growth in a way that is harmless to others not participating in or practicing the same;

Whereas the United States of America was founded on the ideals of individual rights, including the individual right to practice one’s religion of choice, or no religion, and that there would be no compulsion of religion, nor state sanctioned religion, nor a “religious test” for participation in the body politic;

Whereas Islam includes a complete political and social structure, encompassed by its religious law, Sharia, that supersedes any civil law and that Islam mandates that no secular or democratic institutions are to be superior to Islamic law;

Whereas Islam preaches that it and it alone is the true religion and that Islam will dominate the world and supplant all other religions and democratic institutions;

Whereas Saudi Arabia, the spiritual home of Islam does not permit the practice of any other religion on its soil and even “moderate” Muslims states such as Turkey and Malaysia actively suppress other religions;

Whereas Islam includes as its basic tenet the spread of the faith by any and all means necessary, including violent conquest of non-believers, and demands of its followers that they implement violent jihad (holy war) against those un-willing to convert or submit to Islam, including by deception and subversion of existing institutions;

Whereas on 9/11/2001 19 Muslim hijackers acting in the name of Islam killed 3,000 Americans, and numerous other acts of terrorism have been directed at the American people around the world;

Whereas representatives of Islam around the world including Osama Bin Laden (architect of 9/11), the government of Iran including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, HAMAS, Hezbollah, and other Islamic groups have declared jihad (war) on America, and regularly declare that America should cease to exist;

Whereas there is no organized Islamic opposition to violent proponents of Islam;

Therefore: Islam is not a religion, but a political ideology more akin to Fascism and totally in opposition to the ideals of freedom as described in the United States Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.

Be it resolved that the following Amendment to the Constitution be adopted:

Article I

The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.

The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.

Article II

As representatives of Islam around the world have declared war, and committed acts of war, against the United States and its democratic allies around the world, Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited.

Article III

Immediately upon passage of this Amendment all Mosques, schools and Muslim places of worship and religious training are to be closed, converted to other uses, or destroyed. Proceeds from sales of such properties may be distributed to congregations of said places but full disclosure of all proceeds shall be made to an appropriate agency as determined by Congress. No compensation is to be offered by Federal or State agencies for losses on such properties however Federal funding is to be available for the demolishing of said structures if other disposition cannot be made.

The preaching of Islam in Mosques, Schools, and other venues is prohibited. The subject of Islam may be taught in a post high school academic environment provided that instruction include discussion of Islam’s history of violence, conquest, and its ongoing war on democratic and other non-Islamic values.

The preaching or advocating of Islamic ideals of world domination, destruction of America and democratic institutions, jihad against Judaism, Christianity and other religions, and advocating the implementation of Sharia law shall in all cases be punishable by fines, imprisonment, deportation, and death as prescribed by Congress. Violent expressions of these and other Muslim goals, or the material support of those both in the United States and around the world who seek to advance these Islamic goals shall be punishable by death.

Muslims will be denied the opportunity to immigrate to the United States.

Article IV

Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as authorizing the discrimination against, of violence upon, nor repudiation of the individual rights of those Americans professing to be Muslim. The individual right of conscience is sacrosanct and the practice of Islam within the privacy of home and self is strictly protected to the extent that such individuals do not violate the prohibitions described in Article III.
---
first posted at -
http://pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com/2007/02/proposed-constitutional-amendment.html

Posted by: robscottw at October 9, 2007 11:16 AM

I used the link that Ethelred supplied to send the following:

Mr. Watt,

You cannot be serious that you would not oppose sharia law in the US. It mandates stoning adulterers, chopping off theives' hands, that non-muslims pay tribute to muslims, that a female rape victim must bring four male witnesses to support her in court, that a child under nine can be married off to an adult male, and so on.

Maybe this will help you get the picture and better understand the problem: Please name at least one community in your district where you would support the institution of sharia law.

Posted by: ChristianRepublic at October 9, 2007 11:19 AM

More proof for that idiot politician in North Carolina that islam is ALL SEDITION AND THREATENS THE UNITED STATES.

Sura 18:26 Allah maketh NONE to share in his GOVERNMENT.

Sura 4:59 O you who believe! OBEY ALLAH and obey those in authority FROM AMONG YOU!!
That excludes non-muslims so where is the loyalty?

Sura 5:3 This day have I perfected your religion for you. Does that include Christianity?

Dont you dare forget the Hadith segments...

When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to 3 courses of action....Invite them to accept Islam;if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them....(where is the tolerance?), if they efuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help AND FIGHT THEM!!!

I thought islam was peace, love, tolerance, and accepting???

Yeah, I think islam is a cult of death, slavery, and extortion so lets classify it as a political cult bent on destroying all the free world, ban islam in the US, and deport all muslims to their ancestral lands of their choosing.

I am very uncomfortable with several million 5th columnists living in my midst constantly obsessing over my forced conversion or death.

ISLAM NEEDS TO GO!

Posted by: Hungarian Crusader at October 9, 2007 11:23 AM

"The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religious principles." -Congressman Mel Watt(D-NC)

How about this example of "free exercise"...

"In November 1989 in St. Louis, the FBI inadvertently tape recorded the entire episode of a teenage girl's being killed by her Palestinian father and Brazilian mother (the Feds were looking for evidence of terrorism, which they also found). In a ghastly eight-minute sequence, Zein Isa stabbed his daughter Palestina thirteen times with a butcher's knife as his wife held the girl down and responded to Palestina's pleas for help with a brutal "Shut up!" The killing ends with Zein screaming "Die! Die quickly! Die quickly! . . . Quiet, little one! Die, my daughter, die!" By this time, she is dead."

Tina was an honor killing. A daughter killed by her father for causing dishonor for her family in her father’s eyes. Earlier in the day, Tina had applied for a part-time job at a local Saint Louis Wendy’s Restaurant against her parents wishes, and with out their permission. She had recently begun seeing a black boy from school. Both of these behaviors disrespect the family, enough that her father felt justified in killing her.

It's abhorrent that we have representatives that would uphold such behavior as constitutional...or is ignorance his primary excuse?

Idiot.

-XRDC

Posted by: XRDC at October 9, 2007 11:27 AM

Is there something in the water in D.C.? Are these Islamafascists poisoning our Congressmen somehow? Haven't they been paying attention to anything in the world except their own pockets? Maybe it's time to replace them ALL!

Posted by: countywolf at October 9, 2007 11:29 AM

Re: “She might profitably have discussed at this point those humane atheists Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, who had a bit to do with totalitarianism themselves….” I know that Mr. Spencer is a Christian, but that was a cheap shot unworthy of the character of his blog.

I don't think it was a cheap shot. It merely pointed out that totalitarianism is not confined to religious beliefs. People who are totalitarian seek control over every aspect of human life-even to thought itself.

If she had said atheists are prone to totalitarianism it could be equally said, "“She might profitably have discussed at this point those humane religious believers Bin Laden, Savonarola, etc., who had a bit to do with totalitarianism themselves….” It was not a "cheap shot" but the expression of the truth that the will to totalitarianism is not unique to believers in something or believers in nothing. Totalitarianism is the thing in itself-regardless of belief.

Posted by: Frank at October 9, 2007 11:35 AM

The Islamo-Fascist petition is too weak.

It needs to be changed to the "OUTLAW ISLAM IN AMERICA" petition.

It would only have 134 reasons why this would be a great idea to implement.

This idea will be more acceptable I am sure when the muslims grow a mushroom cloud over some US city in the near future.

Why does something terrible have to happen before people take muslims, their koran, and the beliefs of islam serious?

Posted by: Hungarian Crusader at October 9, 2007 11:36 AM

Mel Watt is either clueless concerning Sharia law and what it entails, or he fears for his life should he oppose it; either way, he should resign from office, as he would serve our country better by sticking to a job where yellow-bellied dimwits don't put our lives and freedoms at risk.

Posted by: champ at October 9, 2007 11:45 AM

...hmmmmm, he went to Yale....that explains some things.....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at October 9, 2007 11:47 AM

The constitution of the US is the supreme law of the land. Only congress may make laws for Americans and they must conform to the constitution of the US. No person is obligated to obey any law that is at variance with the rights protected in the constitution. Any law in any religious sect (or non-religious belief-system) that directly contradicts the supreme law of the land is no law in the US and no one is bound to obey sectarian law. Where Sharia law or any law contradicts the supreme law of the land (the Constitution) Sharia law or any other law is invalid. The "free exercise of religion" does not protect honor killings, violence against people who picture Muhammad, or anything that contradicts rights clearly outlined in the constitution.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land. We must never forget that or become confused in accommodations of sectarian assertions that they have "rights" that are contrary to the rights protected in the constitution-the supreme law of the land. No individual or group that violates the constitution in public or privately (honor killing, e.g.) is protected by the constitution.

Posted by: Frank at October 9, 2007 12:03 PM

This is 1 of few articles that I say should be mandatory reading for people on this site.
Please go read it today and forward it.

It is called "Muslim Immigration: A Winning or Losing Proposition for America?"

By: Glen Reinsford

Visit it at www.familysecuritymatters.org/homeland.php?id=1072859

This applies for all nations and not just America.

Posted by: Hungarian Crusader at October 9, 2007 12:07 PM

All here SHOULD take a few minutes to draft up a similar email to the one mentioned above and send it along to the entire Congressional contingent of their respective U.S. states. It only takes a few minutes and could be a seed that leads to the enlightenment of Congress as to the real Islam.

And if you think it is difficult to be so completely in the dark about Sharia Law and Islam in general, take it from my own personal experience. Just two months ago I was TOTALLY unaware of 90% of what I now know about Islam and the grave threat it poses. And I'll add that I am a well-educated, highly patriotic American with what I had thought was a firm grasp on current events, politics, and cultural issues.

To what extent that is due to my own intellectual laziness or the lack of quality information in mainstream media channels I don't know. Let this just be a reminder to the regular posters and visitors to JW that there are many, many intelligent and patriotic people in all countries who have not yet been properly educated on this topic. And if you grow tired of repeating yourself on this blog, know that there are many people coming in every day who are hearing these ideas for the first time. It is important work that we all do by posting here, thereby continuing to educate ourselves and others as to the dangers of Islam.

Posted by: JohnAdams at October 9, 2007 12:11 PM

CAIR at work:

‘MUSLIMWOOD?’ Muhammedan Lobby Group Demands Islam-friendly Propaganda in the U.S.

Entertainment Industry Urged to Hire More Muslims

Hussam Aylush ring a bell?

‘MUSLIMWOOD?’ Muhammedan Lobby Group Demands Islam-friendly Propaganda in the U.S.
Entertainment Industry Urged to Hire More Muslims

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 9, 2007 12:16 PM

Huh, what happened?

The link didn't come up: Sorry, here it is:

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/10/09/muslimwood-muhammedan-lobby-group-demands-islam-friendly-propaganda/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 9, 2007 12:17 PM

Rep. Watt probably thinks Sharia law is limited to food and prayer, unmindful that much of Sharia law covers activities outside the mosque and the home.

Sharia law also violates the equal protection clause. Muslims' voices are given greater weight in a courtroom. Women have a lesser status than men. The list goes on.

How does Sharia law pass the smell test when nativity scenes cannot be placed on public property? Will non-Muslims be required to hear the call to prayer five (or is it six) times a day at their workplace? Will certain businesses (like Wendy's) be banned in a municipality governed by Sharia law? Will students who cannot read a Bible be forced to learn the Koran in Arabic? Would wearing a holy medal or crucifix be banned?

Posted by: PMK at October 9, 2007 12:20 PM

Did anyone hear of what muslims did at the Oak Lawn school district last week in suburban Chicago?

Those freaks already had jello and pork products pulled from the Oak Lawn school district because 1/3 of the student population is islamic. Pork offends muslims BUT nobody seems to care about offended Americans losing pizza on the school menus!!

Did anyone read this in the papers or see it on TV last week?

Since when did 1/3 become larger than 2/3 here in America?

I unfortunately heard about this after they held the town meetings and missed my chance to speak up to those mohammedians in person.

Posted by: Hungarian Crusader at October 9, 2007 12:23 PM

Directly related...

Imagine, a German EU bureaucrat actually hits the nail right on the head:

http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1090&Itemid=64

Posted by: JohnAdams at October 9, 2007 12:25 PM

It is quite obvious that Mel Watt does not have a clue about Islamic practices assuming that he was in fact the author of the reply.

Did he miss the word law in Sharia? He, or the author does not even know what sharia is or stands for.

His response to the question was to act as if sharia was off limits constitutionally because it was part of the Islamic religion. He fails to understand that Islam is not just a religion but a full fledged political movement. In fact many experts on Islam have commented that islam may be as much as 75 Pct. Political.

But then again President Bush does not get it either. Last week, the president and Mrs. Bush hosted their seventh Iftaar Dinner, the celebration that breaks the Muslim fast during Ramadan. Immediately after 9/11, the president visited a Washington, D.C., mosque and proclaimed Islam a "religion of peace." He has frequently said that terrorists are not real Muslims, anymore than people who proclaim to be Christian and engage in violence are genuine Christians.

His constituency is likely to be troubled over something the president said in an interview with Al Arabiya television. ----In an official transcript released by the White House, the president said, "I believe in an almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God." Later in the interview, the president repeated his statement: "I believe there is a universal God. I believe the God that the Muslim prays to is the same God that I pray to. After all, we all came from Abraham. I believe in that universality."
There are "churches" that believe in universalism, his Methodist church does not. No Christian who believes the Bible believes in universalism. And No Muslim who believes the Koran does either.

The prerequisit for incoming politicians.including the president should be that they have a real understanding of the aspirations of islam .

President Bush is wrong - dangerously wrong! - in proclaiming that all religions worship the same God.

You can read this entire article by Cal Thomas here.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2007/10/09/the_same_god

Posted by: Mackie at October 9, 2007 12:28 PM

Although I agree with all of the counter arguments that have been offered. My solution though extreme fixes the problem at the core. Since the separation idea is so ingrained making Islam an illegal religion addresses all of the issues. IMHO that is what will eventually have to be done in order to completely remove the threat.

It has been stated many times before on the forum that Islam is a political, religious and a social philosophy. It's religious status allows it to cut across social/political barriers that would otherwise stop it. They know this and are using it to their advantage. We have all stated in different ways how it is a cancer on our society and its values are in direct opposition to our way of life both politically, socially and spiritually. That is the bases of my POV.

Other systems/philosophies have come that would threaten and over through our system of government. This is no different than fascism, communism, Nazisms or any other ism that attacks our way of governing or freedoms.

Prov 8:13
The fear of the LORD is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate.

مقاطعة 8:13
الخوف من الرب هو الكراهية والشر. الفخر والغطرسه وطريق الشر وانا اكره كلمة منحرفه.

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at October 9, 2007 1:07 PM

A_Plague_on_Both_Houses

Thanks for;

http://a-plague-on-both-houses.blogspot.com/2007/06/one-cannot-serve-two-masters.html

I would like to print it out and mail it to Mr. Watt and others who are selling us out.

Joe

Posted by: Joe Schmoe USA at October 9, 2007 1:25 PM

To Hugh Kendrick who wrote;
“But I must take exception to his remark, when Spencer reported the Reason interview of Hirsi Ali, that, “She might profitably have discussed at this point those humane atheists Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, who had a bit to do with totalitarianism themselves….” I know that Mr. Spencer is a Christian, but that was a cheap shot unworthy of the character of his blog. . . . I write as a life-long atheist – and an Objectivist – who knows damned well that atheism should not be equated with totalitarianism, brute force, or any other species of barbarism. Atheism is not a catch-all term for amoralism, whim-worshipping, and subjectivism.”

You have terribly mischaracterized what Mr. Spencer wrote and meant. He did not state or imply any such beliefs as you have written.

There are many, such as Mr. Richard Dawkins, who believe that all religions can predispose their followers to commit acts of violence. Mr. John Derbyshire doesn’t go this far. Although he thinks that all religions are equally ludicrous, at last he admits that Islam is more intolerant and violent than say, Christianity. In such beliefs, however, there seems to be an inherent assumption that the world would be more peaceful if there were no religion at all.

I urge you to read the debate that recently took place between Mr. Spencer and Mr. Derbyshire.There are links here and at Pajamas Media.

I believe that Mr. Spencer would never equate totalitarianism with atheism. He is far too balanced, reasonable and intelligent to make such a general statement. He is only pointing out that there is plenty of blood that can be attributed to atheists as well. (I will not argue the definition of atheist with you.)

I suspect that like me, Mr. Spencer is a bit frustrated with these ludicrous attempts to discredit people of faith with the false claim that because religion predisposes people to a higher likelihood of violence, the world would be better off without religion.

All religions are not the same and neither are all atheists. And, Mr. Spencer understands this!

Posted by: patagonianplato at October 9, 2007 1:38 PM

Final thought on this:

I am not a lawyer and have no training in law, but I read history and have read the constitution. The constitution does not guarantee "group rights"-it is at its core (in the matter of constitutional rights) between the individual citizen and the Federal government. The constitution is the law of the land that protects the rights of all "individuals". No state (Huey Long in La.. in the early 30's, etc.) or sectarian group (Muslim, etc.), or individual, etc. is above the constitution on the matter of individual rights.

Oddly enough, the first argument (as I detect it)in America that there was such a thing as group rights was made by the slaveholders and secessionists prior to 1861. Lincoln was adamant that no such group rights existed and that the constitution was based on individual citizen's rights and the supreme law of the land applied to all equally-everywhere.

I think this concept of groups having rights (as first asserted by Calhoun and others in the Old South)is a great danger to individual rights and this Republic. This concept of group rights is a door to tyranny and oppression. There are only individual rights protected by the constitution-the supreme law of the land which protects each individual persons life, liberty and property.

Lincoln got it right on this. The constitution is, at its core, about individual citizens and the protection of their constitutional rights by the Federal government. This "group rights" stuff has got to hit the road.

Posted by: Frank at October 9, 2007 1:42 PM

Frank, the battle over slavery was ultimately about property rights; slaves were property, owned by an individual. I never heard the group rights angle until I read your comment.

Posted by: Pelayo at October 9, 2007 2:46 PM

I think Congressman Mel Watt (D-NC) is absolutely correct.
There is no reason why an American Moslem could not practice those elements of Islamic law that do not violate federal or state law, like Islamic dietary laws.

The constituent who sent this letter, by his wording made all Islamic laws illegal, not just the portion that would violate American law, which would leave American Moslems unable to practice their dietary laws, while American Jews would be free to practice theirs, that is unconstitutional, because the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law, even this layperson can easily see that.

No groups, cults, religions in American today are allowed to practice outside the law, we don't allow religious prostitutes or human sacrifice or even polygamy, so we don't need another stinking law that says you have to obey the other stinking laws.

Posted by: Bar at October 9, 2007 2:54 PM

Uh, it should be obvious on its face, that the "establishment of Sharia law" is NOT the same as "the observance and enforcement of state, local and federal laws as created under our republican system of government". In other words, it's somebody else's law system, not what's enshrined in the Bill of Rights and not what "we the people" have voted for in our state and municipal elections. No, no, nooooo to any kind of Sharia law!

Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at October 9, 2007 2:55 PM

Another Idiot needing his Head pulled out of the Sand.

Somebody wake Van-Watt up.

Statements like his should ensure his loosing Re-Election

Posted by: flowerknife_us at October 9, 2007 2:57 PM

Letter I recieved from Mel Watt.

Just wanted you all to know how incredibly insensitive to Muslims it would be to postulate that Islamic law is unconstitutional. It is paramount in our liberal western Democracy to recognize that all faiths, have equal holding on American society. Personally as a liberal I believe that all non-western ideaologies are equal to or better than ours, and should be given special status. To suppose that you can compare Mormans (an entirely western contruct) to the culturally protected status of Islam is a bigoted social perversion. I personally hope that Americans are forced to live under Islamic law, because we are corrupt and evil, and thereby deserve to live as second class citizens under an Islamic state. I also hope that my daughters are captured and forced to convert in the social norms of Islmaic warfare.

Thankyou for your time, your friend Mel.

Posted by: Ameriki at October 9, 2007 3:09 PM

According to Cornell Law School's section on the Constitution, "The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of religion." Note that it says "in most instances." In the case of Islam, "most instances" would not cover and protect this politico/religous body whose stated goal for the U.S. is to have the calip ruling from the White House. I believe that plotting to overthrow our government is against the law; or did I miss something?

Posted by: JohnnyT at October 9, 2007 3:19 PM

JohnnyT. I believe that a case could be made that it is not the motive (a desire to establish islam as the offical religion), but the method -overthrowing the U.S. Constitution to supplant it with sharia, that is criminal.

Posted by: MP at October 9, 2007 3:23 PM

From a legal perspective, this is a silly exercise. Attempting to legislatively "preempt" sharia probably violates the establishment clause (not to mention the free exercise of religion) and it is clearly not content neutral. Moreover, there is no need to preemptively "prevent" sharia or any other system of autocratic rule, as sharia is incompatible with the US constitution. Sharia is not on the table anyway. There is an infinitely greater danger in accommodation of Islamic norms and practices.

I’m afraid we will have to fight each accommodation Moslems seek because Jews, Christians and others have won religious accommodations in the past and paved the road for them. The legislative arena is not the proper one for this the battle. Preferably congress would see to it that immigration changes go into effect that would correct this problem. Note that changes to immigration law do not pose any of the legal problems glossed over above the same problems for congress.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at October 9, 2007 3:49 PM

Six proposals to stop Sharia in the United States of America, and to insure freedom of religion for all who believe in their personal Faith.

There is potentially a thin line between religious belief, which is protected under our Constitution, and a politically driven religious-cult, which is not protected. Islam as a religion of personal belief is protected by law, but Sharia as a political force is not protected by law.

These six proposals are to maintain our constitutional integrity as a free nation, and to prevent a future anti-Sharia internal war:

First, any fatwa issued by an Islamic cleric that is threatening to others is immediately void. The cleric must be arrested and held, his family rounded up, and all their activities restricted. If a ‘death fatwa’ was issued, the cleric could additionally be prosecuted for attempted murder, and deported.

Second, any attempts to impose Sharia law by any organization under our government jurisdiction must be treated as seditious activity, the clerics behind it arrested and sanctioned.

Third, any lobby group demanding Sharia based concessions for any public facilities, public schools, universities, government buildings, public parks, establishments subject to public use (airports, transportation facilities, public restaurants, etc.) must be immediately sanctioned and called to account for their discriminatory actions. If found discriminatory towards others, they should be fined and suspended from further activities.

Fourth, any geographic section of our cities and countryside where radical-Islamic activities prevail and become ‘no go areas’ for police and fire protection must be dismantled as hostile territories within our United States, unconstitutional in their intent to damage the public good. Their leadership, clerics and imams, should be prosecuted for seditious activities, and if of violent intent deported.

Fifth, any mosque where such activities occurred, or had been planned, must be closed down. The ones remaining open must adhere to the same noise restrictions on the decibels level for their calls to prayer as any other private or public activity in a ‘quiet zone’, or otherwise residential area.

Sixth, intelligent restrictions on Muslim immigration must be imposed to guard against hostile entry into our United States. Personnel here for legitimate business or educational reasons must report periodically for reevaluation of their entrance visa. Anyone not a U.S. citizen from Islamic countries must be treated with the same restrictions now applied to banking activities with those countries, and their stay in the country reevaluated periodically, not less frequently that twice a year.

The stated purpose of these proposals is to forestall future and more draconian measures, should the demographics allow Muslim social and political pressures to further challenge our Constitutional laws and freedoms. They must be discouraged, or they might feel they have the right to impose Sharia on us, and the world.

America is the land of the Free. Let our land remain free and continue as a beacon of Freedom to the rest of the world, far into the future. God Bless America.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at October 9, 2007 4:12 PM

...he probably thinks Louis (the lip) Farrakhan is a wonderful peaceful man....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at October 9, 2007 4:46 PM

Congress should press on the government for abrogation of Jihad articles, woman rights, and aposty at the next HRC(human rights conf.nov.) at Copenhagen, to adopt the Tunesian model:

"What gives cause for hope is that, according to the latest survey, the Muslims with the highest percentage of cultural assimilation in France are the Tunisians. This is due in large part to the quality of Tunisian religious education, which has nothing of the culture of hatred for 'infidels,' but rather a culture of moderation that Tunisians absorb through [both] the religious and the political discourses. [3] Unfortunately, this is rare in the lands of Islam

Posted by: dirk at October 9, 2007 4:49 PM

In no instance shall the practice of Islamic Sharia law be established or permitted within any state or territory under the jurisdiction of the United States of America."

Interest, now what exactly is "Islamic Sharia Law?"

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religious principles. Therefore, I believe that the language proposed in your email would be unconstitutional and I would not support it.

Even more interesting. Say Mel, did it ever occur to you to ask what kind of language was proposed in "Islamic Shariah Law?"

Or did you simply see the word "Islamic" fast forward to "religon" and conclude "The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religious principles?"

Mel, is this how you approach all your legislative decsions?

Have you Mel, ever stopped long enough to actually think or do you simply shoot from the hip; smile for the cameras; kiss the babies; and look forward to the next campaign?

I pity those people you are supposed to represent in NC -- I think they desrve better, Mel!

Posted by: witness at October 9, 2007 5:24 PM

TO: Battle_of_Tours

I applaud your six point proposal. It is reasonable and moderate. Most importantly, it is infused with common sense. Of course, there is no chance that the hopelessly ignorant and suicidal politically correct elite will ever implement it. Perhaps they may if many of their beloved ones die in massive attacks. Of course even then there is the possibility that they will continue to blame it on evil America and/or just the “bad” Muslims.

Posted by: patagonianplato at October 9, 2007 5:31 PM

9:5 Slay the disbelievers wherever you find them.

RICO

Pattern of felonious behavior (like 9:5 murder or 9:29 extortion).

Carried on over a period of time (like 1400 years).

Those ‘associated’ with these organizations are in violation of the RICO Statutes. Deportation sounds humane to all involved. Sell the fixed assets at auction and forward the proceeds to the deportee.

RICO. Add courage and stir.

Posted by: pez at October 9, 2007 5:31 PM

That's the big difference between honest "freedom of (specific right)"ers, and those absolutists who think it means totally unlimited...

Even Thomas Jefferson insisted on responsibility and accountability in reference to exercising those rights put forth...rights within reason. He did NOT insist it was unlimited even if it would cause harm to the general populace.

That's the difference between freedom of speech/religion etc, and free-for-all speech/religion etc...which is nothing less than anarchy.

What watt doesn't get it is precisely that...it does NOT give ANYONE-you, me, ANYONE- the right to exercise anything that pose an imminent threat to the very same rights, and the adopted law that brought it about to begin with.

Our Constitution is NOT a suicide pact.

Posted by: jcom972 at October 9, 2007 6:46 PM

Pelayo-

I see it otherwise. Calhoun and others in the Old South were "multiculturalists" demanding respect for their "peculiar institution" and its culture. The "Slaveocracy" (as John Q. Adams called it) wanted no judgement of their "culture" and "peculiar institution" based on the concept of individual rights based on the constitution. They wanted protection for their group beyond all concepts of individual rights. They even demanded that there be no discussion or criticism of slavery in congress and elsewhere-the so called called "gag rules" (that John Q. Adams so bravely opposed). They considered criticism of their "peculiar institution" divisive and hate speech.

They wanted acceptance of their culture ("group rights"). As James Russell Lowell pointed out, they resented even the thoughts of people who opposed them. But as Lincoln said "if slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong". Lincoln made a judgement about the culture of the "Slaveocracy"-and they knew it. That explains the-psychotic-in-Iran-style reaction to his election in 1860. Lincoln did not believe all cultures are equal or relative and wanted the culture of the "Slaveocracy" (as Adams called it) ended.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:su5ZmIxhBx4J:members.aol.com/jfepperson/lowell.html+%22what+they+demand+of+us+is+nothing+less+than+that+we+should+abolish+the+spirit+of+the+age%22.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Make no mistake of it, whether it is Fibrahim Hooper, or Ed-209 "find my Nazi collaborator ancestors please" Lekovic, CAIR-liars, flying imams, or the psychotic in Iran-they too demand "group rights". The answer is and will be "No" to them as it was to the "Salveocracy" (as John Q. Adams caled it).

Posted by: Frank at October 9, 2007 6:57 PM

I applaud your six point proposal... Posted by patagonianplato

Thanks for support, but this is only a 'warning shot' across the bow of the Islamists pushing for Sharia in our country, or any free country. They must not assume that because we let them in we also rolled out a welcome carpet for their Sharia. We already have laws, as some mentioned, that protect the individual, as well as a Constitutional government of laws that would stop them from implementing a quasi-religious rule of law in this country, or any country. However, Islamist have proven themselves a simple people who think that because they think their law is from some deity in which they have faith, that we all should think the same way. We do not, because we do have religious freedoms protected by law. But if they think they can use these freedoms to push for Sharia reforms, we must head them off at the pass, sort of speak, before they make any meaningful inroads against our laws protecting our individual freedoms. This is simply unacceptable, and if they do not stop now, the repercussions of their actions will be more dire in the future, like a war.

If the good Senator from North Carolina would think of these things with a little more depth, he would understand, though only a vote of one, that these are critical issues facing our future. And if left unattended, they will mushroom into serious a enough threath to our constitutional rights and freedoms that we will be forced to respond with violence against them. These are issues that Congress must face in the coming threat from the Sharianization of our civil laws, to please their god, or worse consequences will follow. We are not about to surrender our hard earned freedoms to some primitive 7th century theocratic rule. So it is better to give warning now, with real actions rather than just words, which is what those six proposals are for. Will the Senator, or any other Congressman pay attention to this? Well, either they do now, or else the price later is much more dear, when the nation regresses into another civil war to end slavery. This time, it is Sharia slavery, for which we will not stand.

Perhaps the Senator did not like the wording, but the intent is clear. Now Sharia Law in America, ever.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at October 9, 2007 7:08 PM

Error alert!

i hope it was understood that I meant: "No Sharia Law in America, ever." !!

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at October 9, 2007 7:12 PM

It's ok, 'Tours,
we all speak fluent "typo-nese" & give the benefit of the doubt in that regard. lol

One thing we all agree on...common policy/philosophy:

LAN ASTASLEM

Posted by: jcom972 at October 9, 2007 7:19 PM

Pelayo-

Take for example this demand for "foot baths". This is a demand based on the concept of group rights. It cannot be supported on the basis of any individual rights(Why do all individuals need foot baths?)

In fact, foot baths are a violation of the individual rights of non-believers on public property. The constitution does not recognize group rights-it only recognizes individual person rights. The foot baths are a violation of individual rights and the constitution of the US. These group rights concepts will end in Nuremberg laws-not the constitution of the US.

Posted by: Frank at October 9, 2007 7:22 PM

Congressman Watt seems to think prostituting his role would be seen as admirable by his new found friends. A whore as a whore is even less appreciated in Islam than he seems to believe.
Come to think of it, what does he really believe?

Posted by: Shawmut at October 9, 2007 7:24 PM

Kafir, sharia is not a religion. And the attempt to "preemptively exempt sharia" legislatively is certainly not "silly." How does this possibly violate the establishment clause when sharia is a set of laws contrary to our Constitution and not a religion?

Our immigration policy at this time is silly and in dire need of up-dating and enforcement; immigration is a small part of the solution, however. After all, we have at this moment millions of Muslims living in America legally. What good will immigration policies do us in their case? Ask the EU what they think about immigration policies now that they are preparing to swap their Guccis for sandals. Strict and hard legislation is exactly what is needed.

And sharia is indeed "on the table." Islam and sharia are inseparable: The "parallel society" developing across Europe at this moment has shown us that. The most outspoken Muslim organizations in the U.S. are demanding in our public schools, universities and airports that sharia be allowed and that we accomodate Islam. This "sub-culture of Islam" is contrary to our Constitution and definitely demands some type of preemptive measures before we are all reduced to dhimmis.

There is certainly a need to halt sharia. It is "incompatible with our Constitution" but Islam doesn't give a rip about our Constitution or any western constitution. Under our noses they are slowly implementing sharia while our spineless liberal leftists politicians court their votes.

The "danger" you speak of with our accomodation to Islamic culture is very real and you are accurate there. And it has been seen over and over again that it is through these very "norms and practices" that Islam is slipping in under the door; this is the method by which sharia is entering our country under the guise of freedom of expression and religion. The very Constitution and democracy that Islam hates are precisely what it has learned to use to undermine same.

And exactly what "religious accomodations" have Jews and Christians won that have paved the way for sharia? The First Amendment and the Jeffersonian declaration of a "wall of separation between church and state" have done more to prevent accomodation than allow them: And that is good.

Posted by: JohnnyT at October 9, 2007 7:25 PM

"You always admire what you really don't understand." --Blaise Pascal

Posted by: never_submit at October 9, 2007 7:35 PM

"You always admire what you really don't understand." --Blaise Pascal
Posted by: never_submit at October 9, 2007 7:35 PM

I don't know. There a lot of things folks don't understand and don't admire either-like "group rights" foot baths on public property, foot baths that are not based on the the individual rights protections of the constitution. Maybe Fibrihim Hooper can explain why we should admire group rights over the individual rights that are protected in the US constitution-why everone needs foot baths on public property.

Posted by: Frank at October 9, 2007 7:54 PM

It would seem that, if in the spirit of multiculturalism Islam can have Sharia laws imposed in the US, we can all make up any system of law we like. I'm gonna call my system Infidelaria. A true multiculturalist shouldn't have any problem if Infidelaria declares Sharia illegal... and a capital crime. No? That's kind of "judgemental".

Is this guy insane, or just a waste of protoplasm?

Posted by: RalphInfidel at October 9, 2007 8:05 PM

After reviewing a bit of Congressman Watts ideals as revealed on tape at YouTube . . .he's clearly a loony-left kool-aid drinking lemming.
Yes, he clearly needs to be educated about jihad, but don't hold your breath. His (NC 12th Congressional district) district holds at least two dozen masjid/islamic ctrs. who probably endorsed this guy. Watts likely has a constituency issue at play here.
******

"Did anyone hear of what muslims did at the Oak Lawn school district last week in suburban Chicago? Those freaks already had jello and pork products pulled from the Oak Lawn school district because 1/3 of the student population is islamic. Pork offends muslims BUT nobody seems to care about offended Americans losing pizza on the school menus!! Did anyone read this in the papers or see it on TV last week? Since when did 1/3 become larger than 2/3 here in America? I unfortunately heard about this after they held the town meetings and missed my chance to speak up to those mohammedians in person. - Posted by: Hungarian Crusader

Yup, we read about it - Get a load of the fallout fiasco:

Holiday lights shouldn't have us seeing stars -Chicago Sun-Times
http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/594464,CST-EDT-hussain09.article

The angry lot came dressed in red, white and blue last week, blaming Muslim parents for pushing the school board into contemplating nixing Santa Claus decorations -- a secular symbol they argued was part of their American heritage.
They must not have gotten the memo of the U.S. Congress passing a resolution recognizing Ramadan hours earlier that same day.

As suspected, Watt voted for this resolution, proving himself to be yet another ignorant tool or willful apologist. Shame on him.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll928.xml

Because of such ignorance or willful apologia, we can all expect this resolution to be used as salt in an open wound for every stinking POS advance the RoP takes next.

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at October 9, 2007 8:16 PM

Well, if the USofA wants to legalize homosexual marriage, why should some 19th century Supreme Court decisions against Mormon polygamy (made in a benighted age when nobody realized that monogamy was tightly linked to Christianity)stand in the way of allowing Muslim polygamy, concubinage, or,for that matter, marriage between man and animal? I mean, look at all the women who say that living in a polygamous household is "lberating"? How can modern Americans say no?

Posted by: Kepha at October 9, 2007 8:50 PM

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

--Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Posted by: never_submit at October 9, 2007 9:31 PM

Regarding the comment posted by
Frank October 9, 2007 1:42 PM

"...The constitution does not guarantee 'group rights' -it is at its core (in the matter of constitutional rights) between the individual citizen and the Federal government. The constitution is the law of the land that protects the rights of all 'individuals'... (including) life, liberty and property."
-- -- -- -- --
Richard Lamm, former governor of Colorado, has said (regarding Spanish-speaking immigrants coming into this country and demanding education and services in Spanish instead of English)
"Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., one of the great liberals of my lifetime, warned: 'Ethnic ideologues ... have set themselves against the old American ideal of assimilation. They call on this republic to think in terms not of individual but group identity and to move the policy from individual to group rights. They have made ... progress in transforming the United States into a more segregated society. They have filled the air with recrimination and rancor and have remarkably advanced the fragmentation of America.' We are backing into becoming a bilingual, bi-cultural society despite the fact that there are no happy models out there."

This is a serious concern, and not just regarding Hispanic demands... it becomes a problem with ANY group that tries to legitimize itself with victim status, or which segregates itself so as to create a power bloc. We'll start disintegrating into factions all jockeying to get preferential status for our little groups, and will stop being "one nation, indivisible"....

Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at October 9, 2007 9:40 PM

OT maybe just a bit, but has anyone seen the Eid holiday USPS stamp being released for the holidays? This was first released in September of 2001 and is being reissued this year in the Holiday Celebrations series.

Just what we need...a holiday stamp for Muslim holidays...

Carol Chang

Posted by: lokelau at October 9, 2007 11:25 PM

I agree with the many posters who assume that Congressman Watt knows little about Shari'ah.

What do you suppose Mel Watt thinks Shari'ah entails? Perhaps a sort of "USDA" standards for halal food, or statutes allowing little Muslim girls to wear headscarves at school, or for workers to take time off to pray a couple of times a day, or maybe to make Eid a national holiday.

I personally doubt that he has given it even that much thought. And yet he clearly feels confident that a *ban* on Shari'ah law would violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

I'm sure he has no idea of the institutionalized discrimination, the exploitation, the blatant cruelty--the chopping of hands, the stoning of women, the hanging of homosexuals, the murder of apostates--of Shari'ah, and how it would completely negate the protections of the entire Constitution.

Posted by: gravenimage at October 10, 2007 12:40 AM

WOW, talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. Congressman Watt should have just not responded to the email at all. It isn't as though he actually proposed implementing sharia law. He responded to a question about banning something he really doesn't understand. He shouldn't have.

Look, I don't really want to defend him. But coming from NC, I know there are a whole lot of irrational race baiters. Mel Watt is a laid back, relaxed, thoughtful individual. He should not have responded to this email and he would not have been vilified. But he did respond.

He's wrong. OK. I get that. It is right to point out that he is wrong. It is important that he understand that he is wrong. But if he says 1+1 = 3, tell him it's 2 and don't question his motivation. He's not advocating sharia.

Again, I wouldn't vote for him because he is a liberal. But at the same time, I wouldn't vilify him just because 'he's a liberal'. He should not have responded to the email, but he did and he was wrong. Don't read anything else into it.

KSM did go to school down here. We have political problems down here with Islam (can swear in to court on a Koran). But Mel Watt is not a bad guy like these posts seem to indicate.

Posted by: ThackerAgency at October 10, 2007 10:59 AM

Thacker, Mel Watt is my congressman. After I emailed him about things concerning Islam around our nation, he sent me a very curt reply (I wish I had saved it) telling me that Islam was no threat and not to make it out as the enemy. I emailed him to find out if he was aware of Islam's recent involvement in public schools in Virginia and elsewhere; apparently he was not and based on the above info is still ignorant; not what one desires in his/her congressman. Islam is a matter of national security, not a matter one would want any of our politicians to be ignorant of.

Someone said "all it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."

And look around, Thacker, racism is not exclusive to the South ("but coming from NC"?).

Posted by: JohnnyT at October 10, 2007 3:43 PM

ThackerAgency wrote:

WOW, talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. Congressman Watt should have just not responded to the email at all. It isn't as though he actually proposed implementing sharia law.

...coming from NC, I know there are a whole lot of irrational race baiters...
................................

I doubt that anyone here thinks that Congressman Watt is *advocating* the implementation of Shari'ah law. The great danger is that he (along with most other Western polititians) have *no idea* what Shari'ah entails, and that we can find our societies slipping into Shari'ah bit by bit, innocently aided by people like Congressman Watt who have neglected to educate themselves on this important matter.

As to the charge of "race baiting", I very much doubt that many readers here have any idea what race Mr. Watt is. You find readers here from every state in the US, from Canada, from Britain, from Austrailia and New Zealand, from much of Western Europe, from India, Pakistan, and South Africa. There are probably readers from other parts of the world, also. I myself am from California, and knew very little about Mr. Watt specifically, or North Carolina poititians in general.

This ignorance of Islamic law is hardly just a problem in the US--if you check out "DhimmiWatch" in particular, you will find many articles about well-meaning fellows like Mr. Watt who seem flummoxed by Shari'ah--in England, and France, and Germany, and Australia, and Canada, and the Philippines, and Thailand--all over.

This was no attack on Mr. Watt. It simply pointed out an instance of someone's unfounded assumption that Shari'ah is no threat, and that it in no way conflicts with the US constitution. This ignorance is disturbing in general, but especially so in a US Congressperson.

Posted by: gravenimage at October 10, 2007 3:59 PM

Sharia is unconstitutional period. If this congressman knew anything about Islam, he would see that Sharia is the opposite of democracy and the constitution. The government's lack of knowledge is appalling.

Posted by: Marie at October 10, 2007 4:41 PM

Here's what I just sent to my own Congresscritter. (I altered the text slightly to perhaps make it more Constitutionally palatable.)

As a constituent and supporter of yours for many years, I would like to voice my opinion on what I believe to be the singularly defining issue of our time. Specifically, the rise of Islamism and the threat it poses to our nation and our way of life.

I believe the time has come, given the multiculturalism-inspired drive to see this vicious ideology treated as equal to our own values of democracy and tolerance, to make a stand to say that those who wish to enforce their will upon others based thereupon will find no haven in this country.

Specifically, I would urge you to draft legislation and present it for a vote in the House of Representatives, to the effect that:

"In no instance shall the practice of Islamic Sharia law be established or imposed within any state or territory under the jurisdiction of the United States of America."

Obviously under our Constitution individuals are free to voluntarily submit to sharia law. However, a firm statement must be made to the effect that no one may ever be forced to do so against their will.

I thank you for your time and attention and hope you will give my proposal consideration.

Posted by: Transhumanist at October 10, 2007 7:20 PM