10th Circuit Blocks Oklahama Ban on Sharia Law

Voters in Oklahoma approved a ban of Sharia law that said:

State courts "shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia Law."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations sued.

Today, the 10th Circuit blocked the law from taking effect. The opinion is here. [More...]

"Given the lack of evidence of any concrete problem, any harm seek to remedy with the proposed amendment is speculative at best," the three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote. "Delayed implementation of a measure that does not appear to address any immediate problem will generally not cause material harm, even if the measure were eventually found to be constitutional and enforceable."

The Court also found CAIR had standing to challenge the law under the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, despite the fact that the law had not taken effect at the time he filed his complaint.

< Republicans Join Occupy | Romney Ahead in NH >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    "other ... cultures" (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 07:57:43 PM EST
    Other than which Oklahoma "culture" exactly? And aside from the blatant Establishment Clause violation in singling out "Sharia Law" as that of another "culture," as opposed to say, canon law (Roman Catholic) or Halakha (Jewish), f'rinstance, there's another little problem.  The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution makes federal statutes and international treaties, inter alia, the "Supreme Law of the Land," and binding on all state courts and judges.  Treaty rights are interpreted, in part, by reference to international law.  And so is U.S. immigration law, in part (in its treatment of refugees, asylum seekers, etc.), which is found in federal statutes.  So this stupid, mean-spirited statute is unconstitutional in at least two obvious ways.

    Peter, Peter, Peter, those are facts. (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 08:04:05 PM EST
    Why bring facts into this? They just get in the way of the raw bigotry.

    We already have religious courts (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by RustedView on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 07:46:04 AM EST
    The same folks who would use this service: http://www.bethdin.org/

    Religious courts or quasi-courts exist in this country and have for some time.  This is an issue of CAIR saying, we want to protect the right of muslim people to avail themselves of the same sort of processes that jewish or christian people can.  If you want to pass a law that says, "no religious law or interpretation may be referenced in any contract, divorce, custody proceeding, etc..." go ahead... but, people won't go for it.  That and it violates the first amendment.

    I don't think a "Jewish court" divorce (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 02:07:28 PM EST
    is legally enforceable, but I will ask a friend.

    It is (none / 0) (#28)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 03:33:35 PM EST
    Divorce is a matter of state law, but in New Jersey, Jewish "gets" are legally enforceable if the divorcing parties get a consent order or have it made part of their judgment of divorce by a civil court.  Precisely the same way in which Shariah "court" decisions become enforceablr in England.

    Been that way for decades ...


    There is an extensive history of (none / 0) (#42)
    by scribe on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 08:53:38 PM EST
    greedy or vindictive or abusive husbands imposing all sorts of conditions and demands on their wives in order to get the husband's consent to a "get".  The most common was demanding a waiver by the wife of alimony and support, i.e., she gets no money even if entitled to half plus alimony for life (in the case of a long-term marriage).  This was addressed in New York and New Jersey divorce courts - after they figured out what was going on - by generous application of the chancery court's equity powers.  In short "you'd damn well better grant the 'get' now and without conditions, or else."

    But, the comparison to Sharia law breaks down on the fact that, while in Judaism there's a relatively small number of schools of interpretation stating authoritatively what constitutes Jewish or rabbinical law (and only one, in the case of canon law), there is no such centralizing authoritative definer of interpretations of Sharia.

    But, to be fair, this was simple bigotry being written into law.  To be quite fair, Muslims in America today are being treated not very different from Jews in Germany, circa 1933.  It's just that the roundups and mass killings haven't started yet.


    Let me understand (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 10:39:22 PM EST
    According to you.... if we do not let Shariah law be written into US law it will be like Jews were treated in '33 Germany and roundups and mass killings will start in  the future.

    Wow. The things I learn.


    To be clear, ... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 08:15:49 AM EST
    ... I'm not suggesting it's a good thing that these religious "courts" have been used.  I'm well aware that some of the laws they apply are sexist - even abusive.  That being said, if the parties truly want to use these courts and voluntarily consent to it, as well as a civil court reviewing the decisions, it seems like a reasonable accommodation.

    Personally, however, I'd prefer that religion not be used as a basis for any laws or court decisions ...


    I asked a Jewish friend (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 10:35:20 PM EST
    and he said all divorces must be through US civil courts...

    But what does he know?


    Your friend is right (none / 0) (#57)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 07:29:36 AM EST
    As I stated above, a "Get" (Jewish divorce agreement) is only enforceable by the courts/government when it's approved in a consent order or divorce judgment/agreement in a civil court.  This is precisely the same way Shariah matters are handled in courts in England.  These "courts" have no power, except to the extent that the parties agree to their jurisdiction and have the decisions reviewed and approved by civil courts.

    Although the voters of Oklahoma (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 10:28:29 AM EST
    are not likely to appreciate, at this moment,  the 10th Circuit Establishment Clause ruling, it is in the interests of their own religious belief systems as much as in the service of the plaintiffs.    Moreover, the defects of the legislation included, even after a second try by the state, inadequate clarification and explanation of the proposal to voters--although better for "international law" than for Sharia law.  The Court addressed extensively, as it should, its reasoning on standing.  But given the foundational discrimination of the legislation, it was evident that it met the tests with its very passage, for it affected, in fact, the plaintiffs, the affect was directly related to it, and Court intervention would address the affect.

    Here's a good example - just yesterday (none / 0) (#63)
    by Peter G on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 08:51:33 AM EST
    that is, Wednesday, 1/11/12, the Supreme Court had to interpret the provision of federal employment discrimination law that exempts "ministers" employed by their own religious bodies from coverage, that is, from protection under the law.  To determine whether a certain kind of teacher in the particular church school at issue was a "minister" under the federal law, the Supreme Court had to examine the practices and classifications ("called teacher") under that particular religious body's own "law."  The result was a ruling in favor of the church and against the teacher, protecting the church's free exercise of religion over the teacher's claim of protection from employment discrimination. If a law like Oklahoma's was in place, barring the Court from considering religious law to inform its ruling, I would venture to guess that the teacher/employee would have won instead.

    Agreed It would certainly (none / 0) (#64)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 10:15:45 AM EST
    alter the Court's weighting between the interests of society in employment discrimination and the interests of organized religions in selecting and firing their preachers and teachers.  The unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court was so re-enforcing of the Establish and Free Exercise clauses that the plaintiff was fired from the religious school for violating religious doctrine by pursing litigation rather than trying to resolve her dispute within the Church.  And, the offense was not preaching or teaching against the religious doctrine or moral character, but a claim of disability--narcolepsy.

    In addition, while not deploying "international law" in his opinion,  Chief Justice Roberts deployed a history of religious freedom in Britain as well as the US.   The minister exception is a little too broad for my taste, especially Alito and Kagan's concurrence that includes any employee ....who serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith.  The messenger has the capability of being interpreted too broadly and will need some clarification.


    Peter, I have no doubt you are correct (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 10, 2012 at 11:19:33 PM EST
    But long term this issue will settled in such a way that Sharia law cannot be part of US law.

    That's the issue and the OK law may have been poorly written, etc., but it was an attempt to face a societal and cultural problem that us folks in the fly over part of the country have a deep and abiding concern about.

    And the Repub party should thank the 10th for giving it a nifty and compelling issue for the election.

    Where is Sharia Law being (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by observed on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 03:06:53 AM EST
    made part of US law?

    The great unwashed of us flyover folks (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 07:03:17 AM EST
    have TV, the Internet and some have gone to movies and do have some schooling. (I know that's hard to believe but I have actually observed it to be true.)

    We have observed what is happening in Europe and England and have noted a creeping spread of Islam there due to the huge influx of Muslim immigrants, both legal and illegal.

    There is a growing concern that this will happen here. That's the driver for the OK law.

    I ask this question.

    If CAIR didn't want Shariah law in the US, why did they oppose the law and then file suit?

    Motive is everything in life.


    This (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 07:59:16 AM EST
    is why you guys are so stupid to keep pushing for a fusion of church and state. Places in Europe do not have a separation of church and state. As long as we have separation of church and state in America, this is never going to be a problem. I've been telling conservatives for years that their push was going to come back and bite them in the butt because one day someone who wasn't a Christian was going to use the cases that people like Pat Robertson have pushed forward to press their own case.

    In all of Europe, only 6% of the population is Muslim and that's why the hysterical ninnyism of conservatives gets tiresome.


    Can you please (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 02:01:36 PM EST
    tell me:

    1. Who "you guys" is?

    2. Who is pushing for a state religion?


    Britain and the rest of the European Union are ignoring a demographic time bomb: a recent rush into the EU by migrants, including millions of Muslims, will change the continent beyond recognition over the next two decades, and almost no policy-makers are talking about it.

    The numbers are startling. Only 3.2 per cent of Spain's population was foreign-born in 1998. In 2007 it was 13.4 per cent. Europe's Muslim population has more than doubled in the past 30 years and will have doubled again by 2015. In Brussels, the top seven baby boys' names recently were Mohamed, Adam, Rayan, Ayoub, Mehdi, Amine and Hamza.

    Europe's low white birth rate, coupled with faster multiplying migrants, will change fundamentally what we take to mean by European culture and society.



    I'm not (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 02:26:13 PM EST
    sure your article really helps you. From the article
    Recent polls have tended to show that the feared radicalisation of Europe's Muslims has not occurred.

    You apparently have a race problem or something. I know that Republicans have a fear of "the other" even if the "other" is only 1.6% freaking percent of the population. What are you going to do when this country is no longer majority white?


    Uh, "Muslim" is not a race (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 05:47:33 PM EST
    so that card doesn't play.

    And the operative word is "has not occurred." That's past tense.

    Take a look at Spain and move it forward 20 years.

    Take a look at the riots in France.

    Take a look at Sweden.


    Take a look at Mississippi (none / 0) (#52)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 12:32:49 AM EST
    Just wait till those All-Murrcan, good ole boys find out the Messiah they've been waiting for is Allah.

    Can't wait till I tell that young lady I dated down there that she'll have to buy a matching burke to go with her itsy, bitsy, teeny, weeny, yellow, polka-dot bikini.


    Easy (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 08:11:38 AM EST
    If CAIR didn't want Shariah law in the US, why did they oppose the law and then file suit?

    Read their brief.  They don't appreciate being singled out for disparate, unconstitutional treatment by bigots.

    Anything else?


    I'm a resident of a flyover state (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 12:48:34 PM EST
    and am unwashed as well. However, since I've never feared canon law or any other religious law I'm not with you as a fellow unwashed flyover resident.  I'm not trembling with fear.

    Religious law has no standing in civil or criminal proceedings.


    No one is trembling and I'm not buying your (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 02:05:20 PM EST

    Self interest and awareness of a highly potential problem is just plain old common sense. It is no more fear than being aware that you shouldn't drive your car into water that you have no knowledge as to its depth.

    Or at least it is in my part of fly over land,.


    "highly potential" (none / 0) (#23)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 02:32:04 PM EST

    How highly potential is it exactly, Dubya?


    The implication being, of course (none / 0) (#24)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 02:55:00 PM EST
    that all these latte-drankin', limousine liberals are completely out of touch with the thoughts, dreams, and fears of the REAL Americans: us salt-of-the-earth, "great unwashed" ones over in "fly over country"..

    Coulter and Brooks pretty much flogged that faux-populist b.s to death ten years ago, and it sounded like a self-romanticizing, glorying-in-ignorance-and-right-wing-paranoia b.s as much then as it does now..

    But, with plastic-fantastic Mormon droids and guys who didn't know Libya was a country currently commandeering the conservative national spotlight, the Right is getting desperate for something to rally around..

    Too bad so many of us simple, humble, plain speakin', working folks see right through the charade.  


    Your problem, Jondee (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 05:39:16 PM EST
    is that you're too busy snarking to see anything.

    part of this was left out (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 07:10:49 AM EST
    We have observed what is happening in Europe and England and have noted a creeping spread of Islam there due to the huge influx of Muslim immigrants, both legal and illegal leading to Shariah courts being established.

    Of course (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 09:01:24 AM EST
    Since the US Muslim population is supposed to jump in the next 20 years - from 1% to 1.7%.

    Jim is Trying... (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 10:17:22 AM EST
    ...to explain Fox News hype to people with reason and it's fairly obvious that like many viewers, he is clueless, and playing on the scared of my own Christian white shadow hoopla.

    No examples, no facts, just broad undefinable statements about countries on the other side of the planet and with the always ineffectual 'fly over' non-sense.  As if Muslims are going there and not settling anywhere else, if we could just understand the plight of all those white Christians folks we would be on board with bigotry.

    He can't even answer a direct question about Sharia Law in the US.

    .7% increase in 20 years, scary.  What to do, I know enact laws based on unfounded fears and then complain when the courts toss them out like the garbage they are.  And according to Jim, use that as campaign fodder.

    If the Oklahoma state legislature had actual problems to worry themselves with...

    And please Jim, next time you whip out your "I am socially liberal" schtick, think of this social issue, and where you stand.


    Scott, I explained very carefully (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 02:16:57 PM EST
    that it is a social and cultural issue.

    We have observed what is happening in Europe and England and have noted a creeping spread of Islam there due to the huge influx of Muslim immigrants, both legal and illegal.

    There is a growing concern that this will happen here. That's the driver for the OK law.

    Like too many, you toss the "bigotry" word around while demonstrating you have no knowledge of what's happening in Europe and why there is a concern here.

    And concern is not bigotry.


    Jim (none / 0) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 03:15:22 PM EST
    Since when does the right look to Europe for answers, apparently when the old white Christians get nervous.

    How this relates to the United States is still a mystery.

    The court even said there is no evidence of a problem.  It's made up non-sense to shaft a certain group of people, that is called bigotry.  I know, nothing worse than calling a republican a bigot, even when they are being bigots, it's all about the non-existent proof, right ?


    Scott, you need to take the covers off (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 10:32:02 PM EST
    your eyes. The vast majority of people you see as "the right" are just ordinary unpolitical folks who vote Repub, Demo and Independent.

    And no one is being shafted... that is unless you think forbidding Shariah Law being allowed in the US is bigotry.


    Singling out a particular religion ... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 07:43:20 AM EST
    ... in order to engage in fearmongering is bigotry.  But hey, ... why don't we agree that the Oklahoma law should be applied on a national level to all religions, including Christianity.

    Somehow I think you wouldn't agree to it - and your TP friends sure as he// wouldn't.


    It's not bigotry, it's economics (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 08:04:22 AM EST
    If Sharia law ever became the law of the land, tens of thousands of American barbers would go bankrupt.



    OK Jim (none / 0) (#13)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 12:33:13 PM EST
    I'll bite.

    Were the courts you claim exist established by Parliament?

    Of course not.

    Case closed.


    Want some salt with that bite? (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 01:54:13 PM EST
    At least 85 Islamic sharia courts are operating in Britain, a study claimed yesterday.

    The astonishing figure is 17 times higher than previously accepted.

    The tribunals, working mainly from mosques, settle financial and family disputes according to religious principles. They lay down judgments

    However, they operate behind doors that are closed to independent observers and their decisions are likely to be unfair to women and backed by intimidation, a report by independent think-tank Civitas said.

    Commentators on the influence of sharia law often count only the five courts in London, Manchester, Bradford, Birmingham and Nuneaton that are run by the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, a body whose rulings are enforced through the state courts under the 1996 Arbitration Act.

    But the study by academic and Islamic specialist Denis MacEoin estimates there are at least 85 working tribunals.

    The spread of sharia law has become increasingly controversial since its role was backed last year by Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams and Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice who stepped down last October.



    Jim (none / 0) (#19)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 02:08:09 PM EST
    Have you forgotten the first amendment to OUR WRITTEN constitution?

    The UK doesn't have a written constitution.

    Let me know when the 1st amendment is rescinded, then I'll worry.

    But you've missed an important point about the Arbitration Act.

    "allows for an appeal on a point of law to a court if parties have agreed for this to happen"

    Hardly a mandate to the courts.


    Cal (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 02:18:55 PM EST
    The facts are that the courts exists and are in use.

    BTW - And everyone said it could never happen.

    I ask again.

    If CAIR didn't want Shariah law to become part of our legal system, why did it file the suit?


    Of course they exist (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 03:21:57 PM EST
    But they are only used in family matters and civil disputes when both sides (presumably Muslims) consent to the authority of the "court".  Moreover, for their decisions to have any legal authority, the decision must be approved by a civil court as a consent order.

    They do the same thing in the UK with Beth Dins (Jewish "courts").  We do the same thing here in the US with Beth Dins.  We also do the same thing in a sectarian setting with arbitrators.

    But the Oklahoma legislature and the wingers aren't so worried about that ...


    Jim (none / 0) (#49)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 11:46:40 PM EST
    It shouldn't be surprising that Sharia courts exist just as Canon law, ecclesiastic courts exist for Roman Catholics and Halakha for Jews.

    It should be understood that these bodies judge adherence to religious laws.  Their rulings have no standing in civil or criminal courts.

    If a monetary judgement is made under Sharia law compliance is voluntary; not enforced in the court system.


    settle financial and family disputes (none / 0) (#25)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 03:08:52 PM EST
    according to religious principals..

    Why does that have such a familiar ring to it?

    Pretty close to what people like Ralph Abramoff Reed, Tim Lahaye, Falwell, and any number of conservative Rabbis, here and in Israel have been advocating for years..

    Of course that kind of Sharia Law's alright with us integral-to-the-right-wing-base, great unwashed ones in flyover country..    


    Again (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 05:44:55 PM EST
    I ask again.

    If CAIR didn't want Shariah law to become part of our legal system, why did it file the suit?


    Because they don't appreciate ... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 06:04:25 PM EST
    ... being singled out for unequal, unconstitutional treatment by bigots.

    That was easy.


    makes no sense (none / 0) (#38)
    by diogenes on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 07:00:42 PM EST
    CAIR can avoid being singled out by bigots by filing a friend of the court brief supporting Oklahoma's law because CAIR presumably believes that they and Moslems in the US obviously have no interest in Sharia law.  Thus, we unwashed people might really learn that the notion of some Moslems wanting sharia law is really misguided because in fact their main council doesn't mind a ban on sharia law.

    What?!? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 08:27:10 PM EST
    If I could decipher that, I would respond.

    BTW - Why do you guys refuse to bathe?


    Very well said (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 10:14:01 PM EST
    Of course your perfect logic will undoubtedly confuse some people.

    Oh boy (none / 0) (#50)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 11:59:54 PM EST
    So that means Canon law, Halakha, etc. should also be forbidden.

    You don't seem to get that Sharia law, Canon law, etc. are within their respective religions and have no standing in our court system.

    Under Canon law a Roman Catholic could be excommunicated or some serious breach of Sharia law could get a Muslim kicked out of the mosque, but our court system doesn't give a rat's a$$. Our courts don't care because of the Establishment clause in the 1st amendment.


    This law is an overreach to say the least (none / 0) (#29)
    by Slado on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 05:03:56 PM EST
    The underlying uncomfortable question is how do we successfully incorporate a society, religious or otherwise, that has cultural values differnt from the majority of our society.   Namely in the case of Islam the treatment of women.

    With any culture or religious community we can choose to integrate them or we can zone them off.  Anyone ever been to Utah?   There are multiple examples of both in our great land.

    The fear comes from the fact that Islam is a very big religion and in theory could grow to a much larger size than a couple of crazies living on a commune.

    However is this new?  Name the region or religion and weren't we at one time afraid of the Dego's, the Irish, the Chinese, the Germans, the Jews, the blacks, the whatever?

    Where I don't have the same fear/trepidation as Jim is we have a long history of eventually over time integrating different cultures into our society and in the end we do not judge people (for the most part) based on religion, race or culture.

    One of the great advantages of our me society is we are more concerned about what you can do for me and if you can offer something we don't care what you do on your own time.

    That is the big difference between us and Europe.  Being a relatively new country we are not as burdened with the century old customs of class, rank and social breading.  From the beginning if you could make me rich I could use you.

    As I heard on the great Pelosi daughter's documentary on people becoming citizen's...

    "In Europe they ask you when you're going to leave.  In America they ask you when you're going to become a citizen".

    This too shall pass and we don't need crazy laws to get there.

    nicely put, (none / 0) (#30)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 05:33:36 PM EST
    and your conclusion, intellectually correct.

    Nicely put (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 05:43:31 PM EST
    However is this new?  Name the region or religion and weren't we at one time afraid of the Dego's, the Irish, the Chinese, the Germans, the Jews, the blacks, the whatever?

    But Islam is not so much a religion as a complete social structure.

    Plus, the issue of terrorism and avowed determination to install Shariah law world law has a  wee bit to say about things.

    Your analogy is flawed.


    Why (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 06:08:20 PM EST
    aren't you afraid of the dominionists in this country then? They want pretty much the same thing but aren't calling it Sharia Law. Mainstream politicians want to incorporate religious doctrine into the laws of the country like Rick Santorum wanting to ban birth control. The domoniionists are much much more likely to get their way since they have politicians actively advocating for their law.

    Because they haven't (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 10:28:04 PM EST
    flown any airplanes into buildings and don't stone women and gays.

    Stoning! (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 12:27:39 AM EST
    If it happens here the stoners are subject to criminal prosecution, just as burning someone at the stake for heresy would subject the burners to criminal prosecution.

    If you turn your back on your wife and say 'I divorce you' three times, the laws of your religion may declare you divorced but the state says you're still married and if you marry again you'll be prosecuted by the state as a bigamist.

    Apparently the separation of church and state is beyond your comprehension or maybe you really don't support the separation of church and state.

    And so far as flying airplanes into buildings I'd guess blowing up a federal office building should make us all wary of Christians.


    cal Why are you stating the obvious?? (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 07:09:53 AM EST
    The issue is not that we have a secular government and legal system, now. I totally understand that.

    The issue and concern is that if Shariah law wiggles itself into the fabric of our society, as it has in Europe, that those mean things you note will happen then.

    Try to look into the future a wee bit.


    Unless the future (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 08:22:57 PM EST
    includes removal of the 1st amendment your ridiculous fears are unfounded.

    Do you understand the establishment clause?

    I didn't think so.


    Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 07:00:24 AM EST
    LMAO. So as long as they murder doctors and oppress massive amounts of people it's okay? As long as they don't fly airplanes into buildings? And the dominionists are every bit as bad as the Muslims when it comes to gays even helping countries in Africa set up laws that DO allow stoning and other horrible things to be done to day people.

    You are allowing yourself to be manipulated by fear. This is how every evil dictator and oppressive ruler has been allowed to gain power and then use it on people like you.


    Well, I hope you find it. (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 07:26:27 AM EST
    I mean an a$$ is handy for a variety purposes.

    What you, and others here are doing is deflecting. Being concerned over a demonstrable threat is not being fearful but a basic human trait that is necessary for our survival.

    In fact, what you are doing is letting your fear of the "dominionists" completely block out your ability to be concerned  about another group that is more dedicated, more organized and does want Shariah Law in the US.

    Again. If CAIR does not want Sharia Law in the US why did they file suit?


    You (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 08:27:57 AM EST
    are unable to separate fear from irrational fear. You are much more likely to die in a car wreck than have Sharia Law in this country or die from a terrorist attack. You're much more likely to get cancer than have the above happen. Do you spend as much time obsessing about driving a car or going to the doctor?

    Open both eyes and try (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 11:40:11 AM EST
    to be rational. And quit worrying about yourself.

    The issue is not what "you" may experience.

    The issue is not what "I" may  experience.

    Think out of the box. Look beyond yourself. Think of the future.

    The issue is what my children and/or grandchildren may experience should we fail to keep Shariah law out of our legal system.


    Don't forget to close the closet door ... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 11:57:42 AM EST
    ... in your bedroom at night.

    With an imagination like that, you never know what scary things "may" come out with an imagination like that.

    (Check under the bed, too!)


    And (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 08:32:39 AM EST
    dominionists are much more likely to take over this country than Muslims. Dominionists have actual political power and politicians to do their bidding. Name one person who is advocating we have laws based on the Koran? No one. Name politicians who are advocating that we change our county's laws to being based on the bible? There's plenty of those especially in the GOP. Rick Santorum to name one. And this guy is a serious contender for the GOP nomination. So this just shows that a concern about the dominionists in this country is a much more rational thought process than fear of Sharia Law.

    Name one person....OK (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 11:44:10 AM EST
    If CAIR does not want Shariah law established as part of our legal system..... why did they file suit?

    Answer that question.

    And quit shaking in your boots over Rick S. We both know that he will not be nominated, much less elected...

    Of course he is a nice straw horse for you to ride.


    Because they, like the ACLU ... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 11:52:46 AM EST
    If CAIR does not want Shariah law established as part of our legal system..... why did they file suit?

    ... believe in Equal Protection under the law, and they know that the Constitution doesn't allow bigots to use state law to target religious minorities.

    Seems pretty obvious to anyone who can read their briefs ...


    It (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 05:55:44 AM EST
    seems that CAIR doesn't like being singled out for religious bigotry is apparently why they filed. Are you as upset about the hundreds or maybe even thousands of cases filed in this country by the dominionists over the last decades? Oh, and Newt wants the same thing as Santorum. As a matter of fact Dominionist policy is pretty rampant within the entire GOP. We have an entire political party advocating this kind of policy and you have one group which represents 1% of the country and you are concerned that maybe someday something when there's actual stuff going on and has gone on and you continue to ignore it. If you were so stinking concerned about this kind of stuff you wouldn't be voting for the GOP because they are leading the way for Sharia Law with their belief of fusion of church and state.

    Jim (none / 0) (#66)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 11:38:38 AM EST
    How do you define Sharia?

    What do you think Sharia would look like if people were able to use it in America?

    What do you see as the effect on your day to day life?


    Edger (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 11:46:49 AM EST
    Look beyond next week. Think about 20 years from now.

    Think of your children, if you have any.

    Look at what is happening in Europe.

    Think about the Honor Killings that are already happening.

    This is not a revolution. This is an absorption.


    I asked you specifically three questions (none / 0) (#70)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 11:49:10 AM EST
    YOU specifically.

    Why do ytou think I have any interest in (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 03:52:30 PM EST
    paying attention to your questions?

    Frankly, I have difficultly even reading your comments.


    I'm sure you do (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 04:55:49 PM EST
    I really didn't expect that you'd answer direct questions that would shed any light on your inner motivations re Sharia or Muslim peoples.

    Wingers use crystal balls? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 11:53:46 AM EST
    Who knew?

    Your English is "flawed" (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 06:08:31 PM EST
    Plus, the issue of terrorism and avowed determination to install Shariah law world law has a  wee bit to say about things.

    Do tell - Where is the "avowed" determination to "install Shariah law"?  Who has openly pledged to install Shariah Law in the US?  Do you even know what "avowed" means?


    Think of it this way (none / 0) (#39)
    by Slado on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 07:20:24 PM EST
    When any new immigrant culture comes to america it initially begins as a community with its culture, customs even language largely intact.

    That culture typically is insulated and the practices of the first generation stay in place.

    As children are born, people find work the freedoms of America begin to wear it down.  There is almost no way for the community to block the new culture and way of life.   People can choose to live a certain way but they can also choose to do whatever they wart.

    Will some Muslims choose to live by Sharia law?  Yes.  But they will choose it and unless they are locked in the basement their children will choose to leave the strict culture if they want to.

    I live in Indiana and there are thousands of Omish living here and some choose a strict lifestyle and some choose to open an all you can eat Buffet.


    The Amish (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 07:32:54 PM EST
    are a perfect example.

    I am yet to hear about (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 10:26:43 PM EST
    an Amish person declaring jihad and going to flight school to learn how to fly a jet airliner into a building...

    Yes, some Muslims will assimilate over time. The problem is that this is not happening very well in Europe. And I think the last bombing attempts were from the second generation middle class.

    Nonetheless, second and third generations of Muslims show signs of being harder to integrate than their parents. Policy Exchange, a British study group, found that more than 70 per cent of Muslims over 55 felt that they had as much in common with non-Muslims as Muslims. But this fell to 62 per cent of 16-24 year-olds.


    Based on recent history, it isn't working all that great in the US. Remember. All it takes is one successful attack.

    How does this relate to Shariah law getting a toe hold in the US? Any success would delay assimilation.


    second generation attacks (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by CST on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 10:48:50 AM EST
    use to be a strictly european thing.

    Frankly a lot of that comes from being treated like $hit in the place you grew up in.  America didn't use to have that problem.  It's growing now, but it's growing because of people like you and the hate that you spew causing people to reject the association with "American", not because of religious tolerance.

    You bring up riots in France.  France is one of the least tolerant places for Muslims in the western world.  Riots don't happen when you accomodate people, they happen when you try to put them down.

    Personally, I'm kind of looking forward to the spread of Islam in America.  If it means more kids like my nephew, I will gladly carry that burden.  Who is afraid of the 1 month old TERROR BABY?!?!?!  The worst part is he has blue eyes and may even turn out a ginger, so you'll never see him coming.


    Wrong on one point (none / 0) (#74)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 02:11:19 PM EST
    It's not because of racism that Islam is not integrated into European society.

    It is because of the centuries old class system that permeates most of Western Europe.

    Let's face it, for all the progressiveness of Europe culturally in terms of class and opportunity they are a century or more behind us.

    Why?  Because this country was founded and populated by immigrants.   The only natural citizens of our country have been treated horribly and live on reservations.

    That is the big difference between this country, and except for maybe Australia the rest of the Western world.   We have it in our DNA to eventually accept the latest culture and religion to our society.

    We cannot confuse Islam and radical Islam as the same thing.  Most Muslims that come to this country are coming here for exactly the reasons that would cause the average Westerner to be fearful.   When the Shah fell in Iran thousands poored into America because they feared persecution.   Iraqi's and Kurds came to america to escape Saddam.  On and on.

    Are they Muslims?  yes.  Are they radical?  A 99.99% No.

    Could Jim be right that some disenchanted Muslims might be more likely to become radical?  Yes.  

    Should I stay asleep at night and pass silly laws because of it?  No.

    We have plenty of law enforcement and the powerful inertia of a free society to weed out these odd ball weirdos.

    Yes we have to be careful to not be overly PC and ignore the obvious (See Ft. Hood shooting) but these are isolated incidents and if some great wave of Jihad lands on our shores our society will not put up with it and hide from it like they are in Europe.

    How could they hide?  


    And if the state (none / 0) (#53)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 12:36:18 AM EST
    discovers their children are locked in a basement the state will take their children.