Saturday, December 10, 2016   

  Home     About     Guest Editorials     Advertise     Blog     Site Map     Links     Contact      Subscribe RSS      Subscribe Email  
Home » General

Steve Chapman: Shariah Charade

12 June 2012 General 13 Comments Email This Post Email This Post

by Steve Chapman (Chicago Tribune)

In the 19th century, Catholicism was regarded by many people in this country as thoroughly incompatible with Americanism. They saw it as a hostile foreign element that would subvert democracy. Today, a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court are Catholic, and they are taken to be as American as Mountain Dew.

We’ve come a long way in religious tolerance. Or maybe not. The belief that Catholics are irredeemably alien and disloyal has given way to the fear that Muslims pose a mortal threat to our way of life.

That distrust is behind a push in state legislatures to forbid courts from applying Islamic Shariah law in any case. Arizona, Tennessee, Louisiana and Oklahoma have passed these bans, though the Oklahoma law was ruled unconstitutional by a federal appeals court.

In May, Kansas enacted its version, which doesn’t mention Shariah but prohibits state courts from basing decisions on any foreign laws or other legal codes. The point, however, is not in doubt. One supporter said the bill, which passed 122-0 in the House of Representatives, was needed because “they stone women to death in countries that have Shariah law.”

Does that mean we need anti-Shariah laws to keep women from being stoned to death with the cheerful blessing of American courts? Amazingly, no. It seems that our laws and Constitution take precedence on American soil no matter what the rules are in Iran.

The chief sponsor, Republican Rep. Peggy Mast, explained, “I want to make sure people understand there’s sometimes a conflict between other laws and the Constitution, and we need to assert our Constitution is still the law of the land.” That’s like asserting that the sun is hot: It will be true regardless.

The change will have about as much effect in Kansas as a ban on indoor co-ed field hockey. It turns out no one has been able to find a case where a Kansas court has actually employed Islamic strictures to reach a verdict.

If, for instance, a Muslim man marries a Muslim woman and then tries to divorce her by saying “I divorce you” three times, in accordance with Shariah, he will find he’s wasted his breath. State marriage law will govern in Kansas just as it has in other states when it conflicts with the dictates of Islam.

The problem with banning any consideration of Islamic law is that it interferes with the religious rights of Americans. If two Jewish merchants have a contract that calls for arbitration of disputes in a rabbinical court, state courts will generally enforce any judgment.

If a Muslim-owned company wants to lend or borrow money in accordance with the Islamic ban on interest, its choice should likewise be respected. If a Muslim wants to allocate his estate according to Islamic rules, what’s it to you? Outlawing such accommodation for Islam would illegally discriminate against one religion.

That problem is what led a federal appeals court to overturn the Oklahoma ban, overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2010 as an amendment to the state Constitution. The measure was a drone missile targeted specifically at Islam, in brazen defiance of the First Amendment.

Original post: Shariah charade

Share/Bookmark




13 Comments »

  1. seriously, this again. do people really read these articles and nod their heads in agreeance?

    “which doesn’t mention Shariah but prohibits state courts from basing decisions on any foreign laws or other legal codes.” so how does that not sound like good law to the author?

    “The problem with banning any consideration of Islamic law is that it interferes with the religious rights of Americans.” no it bans all religious law from american courts. again how is that a bad thing. and how does it interfere with their religious rights. unless they do actully plan on stoning poeple to death per their god’s orders?

    “If a Muslim-owned company wants to lend or borrow money in accordance with the Islamic ban on interest, its choice should likewise be respected.” you can write a contract to lend money anyway you want as long as it doesn’t have criminal usury in it. which of course no interest is about as far from criminal usury as you can get. this guy maybe close to a moron.

    “The change will have about as much effect in Kansas as a ban on indoor co-ed field hockey. It turns out no one has been able to find a case where a Kansas court has actually employed Islamic strictures to reach a verdict.” so why worry about the law. but again what is wrong with forward thinking? see new jersy case.

    “If, for instance, a Muslim man marries a Muslim woman and then tries to divorce her by saying “I divorce you” three times, in accordance with Shariah, he will find he’s wasted his breath. State marriage law will govern in Kansas just as it has in other states when it conflicts with the dictates of Islam.” lol. not sure western muslim even go by that fiqh. but the problem that is most likely to come from sharia is in inheritance law. and muslim argue that it is in family court that they wish for sharia to be considered.

    “If a Muslim wants to allocate his estate according to Islamic rules, what’s it to you?” nothing. but if my sister marrys a muslim, has a boy and a girl and the parents die without a will, it may mean something to my niece.

    “Outlawing such accommodation for Islam would illegally discriminate against one religion.” the spin is unbelievable. he starts with it doesn’t mention sharia? the law doesn’t “discriminate against one religion.”, it says no religious or foreign law will supercede american law. again how can anyone be against that!!!!!

    “The measure was a drone missile targeted specifically at Islam, in brazen defiance of the First Amendment.” again he starts with it doesn’t mention sharia? again how is it “targeted specifically at Islam”? drone missle is great imagery. i guess when your article lacks facts you need to play on people’s emotions.

    could they not link to the actual law? i would never take this guys word for anything. and could ya’ll come up with some other deflective comparison then the catholics and the jews. neither of whom’s crazy laws should be anywhere near american courts. suprised he didn’t mention the crusades. lmfao

  2. Catholics influence legislation. Birth control was illegal in Massachusetts long after it was accepted in other states, due to their efforts.

    Amusing that Dems encouraged hispanic immigration and now are faced with Catholic opposition to abortion etc.
    The US has many more Catholics now. They just bought the Crystal Cathedral, whose pastor moved into a smaller formerly Catholic church.

  3. the hour of power went down? that guy was creepy. he had a joker type smile.

    “Birth control was illegal in Massachusetts long after it was accepted in other states, due to their efforts.’ god damn micks

    your tribalism is bubbling to the surface.

    or maybe you are just saying that the tyrany of the majority on a local level can influance law. i’m not sure?

    but you are in favor of eliminating 32oz soft drinks. alcohol. smoking. fast food. what else?????????

  4. In fact the lefties are now openly cursing the RC church in a bigoted manner not seen in many a day. Even taking out an ad against it in NYT. What other religion would they so honor?

    Yes the tyranny of the majority can influence law. Laws can also be passed that flout community standards, like the naked woman on a bike in Oregon. I see some places are reinstating the no swearing in public law.

    No, I am not in favor of eliminating sodas, etc. When I was a kid, almost no one under age 50 was fat. Adults smoked and drank horribly. AAs were living a strange sidelined existence, but their status had been improved by WW2.

    If you crossed the country by car, as my family did, in the days before franchises, lodgings and restaurants resembled something out of I Love Lucy episodes.

  5. “Laws can also be passed that flout community standards, like the naked woman on a bike in Oregon.” i think that was a lack of law. no ordinance against public nudity.

    “I see some places are reinstating the no swearing in public law.” damn you’re current. just heard that on the cowhead show in retarded news. middleborough mass. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/massachusetts-town-swears-off-swearing/

    that fucking sucks. america is in a downward spiral.

    “AAs were living a strange sidelined existence, but their status had been improved by WW2.” alcoholic anon? what’s AAs?

    “No, I am not in favor of eliminating sodas, etc.” you seemed in favor when i posted the bloomberg proposal???????? or are you pulling out the muslim caveats. not eliminating sodas, just ones over 16 ozs?

    “If you crossed the country by car, as my family did, in the days before franchises, lodgings and restaurants resembled something out of I Love Lucy episodes.” damn how old are you? i remeber looking for cheap gas. $59.99 as we drove from florida to wisconsin. it was a big treat to stop at a shoney’s.

  6. ^^ 59.99 cents

  7. shit i’m drunk 59 cents and 9/10ths. can anyone tell me why gas is priced to the tenths. i’ve always wondered?

  8. Keep up! AAs are African Americans.

    Franchises did not take hold until well into the 60s. Until then you got the cheese sandwich and the cabin by the railroad track. My family left the US in the 50s and returned in the 60s. Vast jump in US well being. Kennedy elected, everything sunny. Then……

  9. It’s not the downward spiral, it’s the swing of the pendulum. Western society is cyclical.

  10. would have never figured that one out by content. AAs. where you from? and again how old are you? yes things where improving for black americans after ww2. but you know the best arguement i ever heard from a black socialogist for the status of AAs in america, wasn’t about slavery or jim crow holding blacks, sorry AAs, back from social advancement. but that the bill that gave returning vets from ww2 mortgages at discounted rates. but blacks were excluded. many families built their wealth through home ownership. the expansion of the suburbs and car ownership drove much of the growth throughout the 50s and 60s. kennedy did lower the top tax rates quite a bit. you knpw what is funny. by modern standards kennedy would be much more republican (what ever happened to: ask not what your country can do for you…..) and nixon would be a liberal. expanded the nanny state more then kennedy and johnson.

  11. “it’s the swing of the pendulum” that’s hilarious. i say that all the time. don’t worry the pendulum will swing back. you know the problem with the pendulum. always overcorrecting. may never settle in the middle. but then again im not in the middle. i’m a radical. but my views are on both sides of the spectrum. fiscal conservitive and a social liberal. never find that equallibrium. oh well.

  12. Shariah is a problem because of the attempts by Muslims to impose shariah on non-Muslims through violence if necessary. Just recently you had Muslims rioting in the streets of Germany and stabbing policemen because a group of non-Muslims displayed Muhammed cartoons.The protestors who displayed the Muhammed cartoons said they were sending a message to Muslims about the supremacy of free speech over Shariah.My question is what business is it of ANY Muslim what a non-Muslim living a secular country chooses to draw.

  13. hera,

    “Shariah is a problem because of the attempts by Muslims to impose shariah on non-Muslims” i think sharia is a problem because sharia is bad law, regardless of who one menas to impose it on. not to mention as a nation we shouldn’t have multiple laws imposed on different segment of the populace. one nation one law.

Have your say!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>