Kansas governor signs bill banning Islamic law

Sorry, while there are implementations of Sharia Law that are horrible, it is still a religious practice that can be used in civil, not criminal issues. Therefore to ban Sharia Law is in fact infringing on the religious rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.

- - - Updated - - -

Ah, well, since you've made this determination then it's GOTTA be true.

 

Absolute nonsense, the idea that women within the Muslim community could possibly voluntary opt out of Sharia Law for civil matters completely ignores the fact that they would be under the threat of honor killing, there is no voluntary for women in the patriarchal Islamic culture in which women are seen as little more than cattle and for the U.S. judiciary to recognize any of these civil judgements as legally binding and/or legitimate is unconscionable.

 

I have not advocated the banning of any religion.

 

FALSE! It shows knowledge of Sharia, Islam and US law (and you need to learn to capitalize more)

 

I think people need to keep in mind that this law bans making legal decisions based on Sharia law which I challenge anyone here to defend as a coherent set of reasonable laws that should apply to Americans. This isn't about banning Islam as a religion from what it says in the OP only Sharia law.

Hell we don't even use all the Christian and Judeo laws and this nation was largely founded on those laws. Sharia law is obnoxious, vile, disgusting, mysoginistic and just all around evil. Yes it has some fairly innocuous laws but it is also full of silly ridiculous stone age laws concerning adultery and other private matters.

I have a very low opinion of highly centralized and dogmatic religions like Catholicism and Islam but I don't want them banned. I do however have a huge problem with having legal decisions based on those same dogmatic, highly centralized religious organizations. This is America and as long as you aren't infringing on someone else's rights then everyone else should butt out.

 

Beware of those who begin posts with the word "actually". I find a very high % of them to be wrong. One of the primary facets of Sharia (which is basically the Koran made into law) is Islamic supremacy. That is unconsitutional by virtue of the US Constitution Article IV, Section 2, the Supremacy Clause >>>

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

By virtue of this fact, Sharia and Islam are already banned by the Cionstitution, but this simply hasn't been enforced, like a lot of immigration law exists but isn't enforced. As for the "Laws of the United States" mentioned in the Supremacy Clause, they are butchered by Islam/Sharia, as I mentioned in Post # 109. (supremacy, murder, torture, wife-beating, sex discrimination, rape, slavery, animal cruelty, pedophilia, etc).

 

Honor killings are and would be handled as a criminal matter. Outright coercion also falls under criminal codes as forms of Sharia Law that directly conflict with criminal codes.

Regardless of everything you say, US code in most if not all, recognize 3rd party arbitration of civil matters. To disallow based on religion, assuming the arbitration doesn't result in violations of the civil code, is definitely against Constitutional rights rather you like it or not.

 

NO, "Christianity" does NOT allow for that (as Sharia does).

Even conservative Christians aren’t behind this trend. Radio host Bryan Fisher told The Huffington Post that he finds no basis in Christianity for such a relationship. He described the trend as ‘horrifying,’ ‘ bizarre,’ ‘unbiblical’ and ’un-Christian’. "Christian Domestic Discipline" is nothing but a goofball idea of a couple who advocates it. Anybody can advocate anything, That doesn't make it "Christianity".

'God in the New Testament clearly asks wives to arrange themselves under the leadership of their husbands (in Greek, the word 'submit' means 'to arrange under.') But there is no place where husbands are instructed to make their wives do it or punish them if they don't.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...husbands-SPANK-wives-correct-misbehavior.html

 

No it cannot be used, as was demonstrated by the New Jersey rape/restraining order case, in which a nutjob New Jersey lower court judge allowed a Muslim husband to use his Sharia religious (he calls it) convictions, to base a denial of a restraining order for his beaten and raped wife. The judgement, of course, was overturned in an appeals court.

Awfully weak response. Got anything better ?

 

Well, duh. There was no religious basis for the thug's behavior and the judge who refused the protection order needs to take up a career for which he is better suited. Something in building maintenance, perhaps. Sobody could show him how to use a mop.

Awfully weak response. Got anything better ?

 

Were you aware that honor killings are not part of Shari'a? Tribal crap, really.

 

Just off-hand, can you show me where in the New Testament they are so instructed, other than in the context of sex?

 

Read the bolded part again and see if you find the "intent" behind it to be as silly as I do. Way to go Governor Brownback, make your party seem as bigoted as they really are for no reason whatsoever than to throw a sop to the Teanazis and somewhere, down the road, somehow cost the public lots of money. "We hereby resolve to follow our own laws and not those of a foreign country" (*)(*)(*)(*)ing BRILLIANT.

What a truly stupid and idiotic idea. Brownback must be bucking for the Teanazi 2016 Presidential nomination

 

Yours is the weak response. The judge stated that due to the man's religious beliefs, his behavior should not be ruled as unacceptable. The man had cited Koran 4:34, which advocates both rape and wife-beating. Suras 2:223 and 4:24 also advocate rape. Yeah. The "well duh" describes your ignorant post all right. Ever get tired of coming in here not knowing what you're talking about ?

"Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them." (Koran 4:34, Dawood, p. 83)

 

Why would you ask that, when I just said >> "there is no place where husbands are instructed to make their wives do it or punish them if they don't."

 

You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Yeah, but you did though..

"Of course Sharia law should be banned, as should Islam entirely."

You are free to change your mind though. : )

 

I just woke up, and when I logged on PF, first thing I saw was this:



Better not go to Kansas, HFD!

 

I've been to Kansas, hence the bill. The governor wasn't too happy about what I did with his wife.

 

The point is that women would not be able to voluntarily opt for the civil trial under the Sharia it would be de facto compulsory and that is why the results of such trials should never be considered legally binding or legitimate by the U.S. judiciary as it is in the British judiciary where it has been proven that cases of domestic abuse have actually been conducted by these Sharia courts, it is a mockery of justice and those advocating for it are enemies of liberty and gender equality.

 

What about the USA adopting the Talmudic Noahide laws and supporting the anti-Christ Synogog of pseudo-Israel? We spend trillions supporting their mischiefs, schemes and wars.

 

That was a criminal case. Religious "convictions" should never supersede criminal laws.

Marital rape wasn't a crime in all 50 states until 1993 so the legal precedence is probably still a bit muddled.

It is illegal now and the judge was horribly wrong to act as though religious convictions supersede criminal law.

 

Can he also sign a law banning male circumcision for religious reasons?

 

Honestly, if it is found that a Sharia court is conducting domestic abuse cases, everyone involved should be charged with aiding and abetting a crime.

I would like to be clear, I don't agree with Sharia Law or any other implementation of religious law. However, if two people enter a contract and agree to 3rd party mediation, then it's their choice.

 

Really great retort there dude. Keep up the good work. HA HA HA. When you think of something to ACTUALLY say, let me know OK ? Pheeeeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle)