Banning Sharia Law

[wjh2657]

See below: (Posted on WSMV RSS Feed)

Legislators Propose Bill To Outlaw Sharia Law

Ketron, Matheny Claim Islamic Law Threatens National Security

POSTED: 9:08 am CST February 23, 2011

UPDATED: 9:59 am CST February 23, 2011

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Two state lawmakers are taking aim at a controversial Islamic law known as Sharia.

State Sen. Bill Ketron and state Rep. Judd Matheny have introduced a bill that would make Sharia law illegal in Tennessee

.

The two Republicans view the religious work as a threat to the U.S. Constitution and national security.

Nashville

Imam Mohamed Ahmed told the Tennessean that Islam teaches followers to obey the law of the land and that Sharia law teaches moral values.

A senior scholar at Nashville's First Amendment Center told The Tennessean that the proposal is unconstitutional.

There is another problem, (other than Constitutionality) with this legislation.

First this nation already has declared by public law (PL 102-14) that all of our law is based on the Talmudic law of Judaism. Thinly disguised as Noahide Commandments , which are not Biblical but Talmudic ( Actually Noah was only given 2 commandments) , the Talmudic law has been declared by the U.S. Government to be the basis of all U.S. Law. PL 102-14 supposedly sets up Education Day, however the words in the law have very little to do with education! This was done under George Bush Sr., however, both parties passed it through Congress. Those that argue that this is a moral law only, need to read the public law. It clearly states that our national law (legal) is based on the Noahide Commandments which are strictly Jewish law (Talmud) and have no biblical basis.

First: I believe that PL 102-14 is a violation of Religious freedom and therefore Unconstitutional.

Second: this is a dangerous precedent for another religious group to state that, if Talmud is legal basis for our laws than why not Sharia Law or any other religious law?

We don't need legislation fending off each religious group that tries to hi jack our legal system. We need government that recognizes and follows the Constitutions (State and Federal) instead of their religious beliefs.

[Punisher84]

I'll toss my 2 cents in before this deteriorates into a bloodbath and ends up locked. Sharia law is not our law, plain and simple. Any "law" that allows for an "honor killing" of a child because they've become too "westernized" is not something I support. Once these radical Muslims start trying to claw themselves out of the Stone Age, then maybe we can all talk. Until then they need to either accept our country's laws and system or stay the hell over there.

[Guest mosinon]

I'll toss my 2 cents in before this deteriorates into a bloodbath and ends up locked. Sharia law is not our law, plain and simple. Any "law" that allows for an "honor killing" of a child because they've become too "westernized" is not something I support. Once these radical Muslims start trying to claw themselves out of the Stone Age, then maybe we can all talk. Until then they need to either accept our country's laws and system or stay the hell over there.

Every time they try to claw themselves out, we keep bombing them back in.

I think such a law is ridiculous. It's like a law in Saudi Arabia banning Christianity or something. Is the solution to out problems becoming more like the people they keep telling us are causing our problems? I think not.

In America you are free to follow whatever religion you want. If you don't want to eat pork, fine. But when your religious laws conflict with the laws of the US don't be surprised when you have problems. You got to prison for polygamy? Too bad. Got the chair for an honor killing? So sorry.

I'm not too worried about following Sharia law, I'm much more worried about people not following the actual law.

[hipower]

The problem here is that Sharia is more than a set of laws for moral behavior; it also binds the faithful to the political and governmental structure of Mohammad and Islam. Not only does it decree that the faithful follow the rites of "honor killings" and wife beating; it is at the heart of the tenaments of Islam. Treatment of infidels, the non-believer, is proscribed, including the expansion of Islam to all the world by force if necessary.

I know this isn't well phrased, but look up Sharia Law. It is quite troubling if you believe the Islamic faithful are moderate and peaceful.

[Guest HvyMtl]

This law is unnecessary. Why? We have our laws set. So. A person commits a crime while following the "Sharia Law" they get to go through the US Justice system.

Your murder may be "warranted" under Sharia Law, but in the US, a murderer will go through the courts just the same.

Point is this: The Founding Fathers were no idiots. They knew religions would attempt to assert power over the government of the US. This is why the separation of "Church and State" exists.

[Guest friesepferd]

This law is unnecessary. Why? We have our laws set. So. A person commits a crime while following the "Sharia Law" they get to go through the US Justice system.

Your murder may be "warranted" under Sharia Law, but in the US, a murderer will go through the courts just the same.

Point is this: The Founding Fathers were no idiots. They knew religions would attempt to assert power over the government of the US. This is why the separation of "Church and State" exists.

+1

[Mike.357]

I see no need for this law. If something is done under Sharia law and it is against laws here they will answer for it. Saying that what they did falls under Sharia law is not a defense.

Maybe though this law is some foresight. I could see the possiblity of a liberal judge, somehwere down the road excusing a person for a crime commited and using their religious rules as a defense. As stupid as that sounds carazier stuff has happened.

[Raoul]

I see no need for this law. If something is done under Sharia law and it is against laws here they will answer for it. Saying that what they did falls under Sharia law is not a defense.

Maybe though this law is some foresight. I could see the possiblity of a liberal judge, somehwere down the road excusing a person for a crime commited and using their religious rules as a defense. As stupid as that sounds carazier stuff has happened.

This.

[bubbadavis]

In the UK, there are groups trying to get the courts to enforce Sharia law. IMO, this bill is attempting to thwart any attempt to replace our existing laws with Sharia law.

I also agree with Mike.357's statement that a judge could decide to let someone off for a crime that committed because of their religious beliefs. Maybe they are trying to address this with the bill.

[Dolomite_supafly]

This would not be an issue if we, as a nation, would quit trying to make everyone happy. The only reason why we would even need legislation like this is because the do-gooders of this nation feel the need to make others happy. We are probably without a doubt the most hated country in the world so why are we trying to bend over to accomodate those who hate us. We need to quit worrying about being so PC and by all means quit accomodating every new group of people that come here. If they want to come here to reap our rewards then they shouldn't have a problem assimilating to our laws. Quit making it easier on these immigrants, both legal and illegal, at the cost of this country's citizens. We have our laws, if you like your own country's laws better then go back to where you came from. It isn't that hard, millions have done it before.

This isn't related specifically to Sharia Law but the practice of stepping on the citizens of this country to make non citizens happy is disgusting. I get so disgusted every time I go to the store and have to search for English on a label. I was in a McDonalds and watched a group of Mexicans standing around, rather than working, acting like they couldn't understand english. The manager was trying to accomodate them by speaking spanish but the group would just shrug their shoulders as if they didn't understand because the manager wasn't fluent enough in spanish. Same McDonalds, my wife asked for mayonaise and got the same response, shoulder shrug after shoulder shrug. After getting packets of every other condiment the worker finally made it to the mayonaise drawer and my wife got what she asked for. These people should not be working there if they can not understand English. Worse yet some probably do understand but use the language barrier as an excuse to be lazy. I agree with the discrimination laws but they shouldn't be used to mask a persons inability to perform a job. If you are told to make a f**king hamburger and you can't for ANY reason, whether it be a language barrier, laziness or no reason at all, you should be fired. After all if the establishment was discriminating you wouldn't have had the job in the first place.

The biggest problem I have is the different groups cry discrimination every time they get their feelings hurt by our country's laws or social norms. Even if it isn't an issue of discrimination they throw up the "card". And in most cases people are so afraid they bow down to the holder of that "card" and accomodate them. I am far from being a racist but I do have my preference in those who I associate. It is not racist because I want to socialize with like minded individuals after all that is why most people are on this board. What I am though is someone who sees people for their actions regardless of their sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, sexuality and sometimes religion and political views.

Dolomite

[Guest 270win]

Too many people in our country try to accomodate others from places that don't want to blend in with us. I don't mind them coming over here to visit Disney World or go to the casinos, but once they blow their money, they need to go back home if they don't want to be like Americans. I don't think i'll learn Arabic or Sharia to help them. I see the bed sheets all the time in Memphis at shopping stores in Memphis. Some all you can see are their eyes. Makes you wonder what they are hiding. Reminds me of a funny Dave Chappel video and if I was about 16-20 I'd sneak up on one fully covered except for the eye balls as a joke and say "Take off that hood and Show us your face!". My wife would kill me if I did that today in public! I guess that's not too 'PC' of a joke these days. How wacky things have come since I was a boy.

[Guest TnRebel]

Its all PC .. and that my friends is where it has led us ...... Period

[JAB]

I see no need for this law. If something is done under Sharia law and it is against laws here they will answer for it. Saying that what they did falls under Sharia law is not a defense.

Maybe though this law is some foresight. I could see the possiblity of a liberal judge, somehwere down the road excusing a person for a crime commited and using their religious rules as a defense. As stupid as that sounds carazier stuff has happened.

I am thinking along the same lines as you. I wonder, though, if rather than passing a law that will not stand in the courts by outlawing sharia outright, it might not be better to pass a law to the effect that no elements of sharia or any other religious law will ever be recognized as a defense to or substitution for the laws of the state. That way, you aren't violating anyone's religious freedom. Instead, you are simply saying that, in matters of criminal or civil judgement, religious laws will hold no weight.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Sharia what? Who made this a law? Where does

it sit in the Constitution?

I think we have a no brainer with this one.

I don't recognize Sharia as law. So there!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hipower]

Sharia what? Who made this a law? Where does

it sit in the Constitution?

I think we have a no brainer with this one.

I don't recognize Sharia as law. So there!

What I meant to say. I just got too literal and wound up in my commentary. But check it out. In a nutshell Sharia encompasses the whole of Islam and Muslim life. It is virtually impossible to seperate a part from the whole. So why should we even consider Sharia as a componet or mitigating factor in interpreting our own laws?

[strickj]

I do not see how this could be struck down as being "unconstitutional". In fact, it is very pro-constitutional as it's separating a religion from the state.

That said, I would only support it if it was changed to include all religions and all religious "morals".

[macville]

The law as it stands is really not that necessary. Most things that we would probably want covered by it are already covered by Federal and State law. However, a law that said that judges and juries can not consider Sharia law in court, that would be good considering a judge somewhere in the US already let it pass in their court.

[mcurrier]

This law is unnecessary. Why? We have our laws set. So. A person commits a crime while following the "Sharia Law" they get to go through the US Justice system.

Your murder may be "warranted" under Sharia Law, but in the US, a murderer will go through the courts just the same.

Point is this: The Founding Fathers were no idiots. They knew religions would attempt to assert power over the government of the US. This is why the separation of "Church and State" exists.

Agreed, and fairly accurate, with the exception of the very the last sentence. People's misunderstanding and repeating of that phrase only perpetuates a belief that it exists. There in fact is no "separation of Church and State", it doesn't exist except in some liberal minds. What does exist however is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which relates to "Freedom of Religion" and "Freedom of The Press/Free Speech". That's freedom of, not from. It declares that people can have religion and the government shall keep it's nose out of it. The 'religion' is in the people, not the government, but people are in the government. Governments can't get the flu, but people who work in them can have the flu when they go to their government job (i.e. Senator, Congressman, etc.), just as they have their religion in them when they go to that same job. If someone wants to interpret what the 1st Amendment says in a different manner, they will have to change words and twist the plain and simple meaning of what it says in black and white. If they want to say that it is "freedom from religion", then I guess they'd also have to say the next line reads "freedom from the press." These days, that may not be a bad idea. They don't report any truth or facts anyhow.

[mcurrier]

I do not see how this could be struck down as being "unconstitutional". In fact, it is very pro-constitutional as it's separating a religion from the state.

That said, I would only support it if it was changed to include all religions and all religious "morals".

Now this statement regarding so-called "separating a religion from the state" is actually accurate in that it covers in the right direction, i.e. govt. NOT making up laws based on religion or establishing a state religion (and then persecuting people for not adhering to it - reasons for the Reformation and again for the Pilgrim's leaving England for America). This is actually what the 1st Amendment is partially about. People just have to understand that it operates in one direction, but not the other, keeping govt. out of the religion establishing business.

Religion is inside the person, not the government, and that's ok. JFK was a Catholic. Carter a Baptist. Bush a Methodist. But if we had a king instead of a representative government, and said king dictated that everyone had to be the XYZ religion and if they weren't they had to pay higher taxes, fines and receive other penalties and imprisonment, or even death, THAT is what the 1st Amendment prevents, not people of religion working or interacting with government. Because, again, just to be clear, religion is in the people, a part of them, so they can NOT be excluded from participation or interaction, their religion being a part of them goes wherever they go.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Sharia what? Who made this a law? Where does

it sit in the Constitution?

I think we have a no brainer with this one.

I don't recognize Sharia as law. So there!

What I meant to say. I just got too literal and wound up in my commentary. But check it out. In a nutshell Sharia encompasses the whole of Islam and Muslim life. It is virtually impossible to seperate a part from the whole. So why should we even consider Sharia as a componet or mitigating factor in interpreting our own laws?

No, your commentary was fine with me.

Sharia "law" is the dictatorial extension of a religious doctrine, or something like that. It has and

will always have no place in the American way of life.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I do not see how this could be struck down as being "unconstitutional". In fact, it is very pro-constitutional as it's separating a religion from the state.

That said, I would only support it if it was changed to include all religions and all religious "morals".

Doesn't it also make it redundant? And unnecessary?

[Guest mosinon]

Doesn't it also make it redundant? And unnecessary?

You're right. I wish laws could be struck down for being redundant...

[JAB]

I do not see how this could be struck down as being "unconstitutional". In fact, it is very pro-constitutional as it's separating a religion from the state.

That said, I would only support it if it was changed to include all religions and all religious "morals".

I see it as doing the opposite of separating religion from state. To say that Sharia will not and cannot be used as a 'substitute', a 'modifier' or even a consideration in matters of legal decision would be one thing. Banning the practice of Sharia law, outright, could be another.

I say this because it is my understanding (and someone correct me if I am wrong) that some of the religious tenants/practices, which would otherwise be legal and harm no one, are also part of Sharia law. One example of this would be the prohibition against eating pork. Another would be the practice of preparing/selling/consuming Halal foods. So, technically, it would be legal for Jews to have Kosher foods but not for Muslims to have Halal foods as the whole idea of Halal would be, to my understanding, part of Sharia law and any practice of Sharia law would be criminal under the proposed legislation. That is why I do not believe the law would be Constitutional nor would it stand up in court.

A law, however, specifically stating that Sharia can never be used or even considered when deciding criminal or civil matters in a court of law would block any future attempts to try and do so. As others have mentioned, there is actually debate in some other countries where the Muslim population has grown pretty large about the possibility of using Sharia law and not the law of the land in deciding cases against Muslims/Sharia followers. Therefore, a law making it clear that this is not even a possibility would prevent any such future debate or attempts to bring Sharia law into legal matters.

[Guest HvyMtl]

mcurrier's defining of the 1st A is correct, as the concept of the Bill of Rights are limits on the Government, and ensuring the unalienable rights of the people are not trod upon.

The point is still valid: The Founding Fathers understood quite clearly the forced religion of the nations they left to come here. And they placed the First Amendment as a clear recognition the US would never follow suit, by stating religion is of the people and not of the government. Although oversimplified by the statement of "separation of church and state," the aspect where a mandated religion, or the allowance of religion to dictate over other religions by the government, is not allowed is correct. Sharia Law would be a dictate by one religion over others.

And as the government is not allowed to incorporate religion, it being left to the citizens, its laws should not incorporate religion, but treat all citizens equally, sometimes in spite of their religion.

So, again, the Founding Fathers were no idiots on religion, and took safety measures (as the Islamic Religion was known at the time.) If you think back, this is a similar fear to when JFK, a Catholic, took office. The fear was he would follow the Pope's orders and not the US law. And yet, this was not the case. It is the same fear of a certain Mormon GOP Candidate...

[Guest cmchap76]

I just read the entire Bill. I see no place in it where people can make statements such as, " This bill is desighned to outlaw the practice of sharia law", or "Senator Ketron is trying to make sharia law illegal. These are exerpts straight from the Bill itself:

"The targeted criminal prohibitions set forth in this part are meant to be a focused and least intrusive method for the state to protect its citizens and residents from the threat posed by sharia-based jihad and terrorist persons and organizations."

"Sharia in particular includes a war doctrine known as jihad, which is an organic, intrinsic and central feature of the laws and traditions of sharia due to a consensus among sharia authorities throughout the ages. Jihad and sharia are inextricably linked, with sharia formulating and commanding jihad, and jihad being waged for the purpose of imposing and instituting sharia.

"The unchanging and ultimate aim of jihad is the imposition of sharia on all states and nations, including the United States and this state; further,pursuant to its own dictates, sharia requires the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the United States and Tennessee Constitutions and the imposition of sharia through violence and criminal activity"

"This part neither targets, nor incidentally prohibits or inhibits, the peaceful practice of any religion, and in particular, the practice of Islam by its adherents . Rather, this part criminalizes only the knowing provision of material support or resources, as defined in § 39-13-803, to designated sharia organizations, as defined in § 39-13-904, or to known sharia-jihad organizations with the intent of furthering their criminal behavior. "

" The attorney general and reporter is authorized to designate an organization as a sharia organization in accordance with this subsection (a) if the attorney general and reporter finds that:(A) The organization knowingly adheres to sharia;( The organization engages in, or retains the capability and intent to engage in, an act of terrorism as defined in § 39-13-803; and© The act of terrorism of the organization threatens the security or public safety of this state's residents.

So, Is it just me, or do those 3 sections pretty much sum it up and say that this bill does not make sharia law illegal, nor the practice of sharia law. But only the practice of sharia based jihad?