Kansas governor signs bill banning Islamic law

That's not advocating the banning of a religion. That is advocating the banning of Islam, which is not a religion, but merely an ideology that masquerades as a religion.

It's obvious how Islam came to be purported as a "religion". When the founders of it were espousing imperialist genocidal mass murder, extreme misogyny, rape, pedophilia, kidnapping/slavery, torture/mutilation, racial and sexist discrimination, animal cruelty/killing, and other vile things, and were looking for troops to join them in their conquests throughout Asia Minor, they needed something very powerful and extreme to offset and shield them from the severe condemnation they were sure to get.
The answer was religion. By pretending that the Koran, and all of its hatred and immorality was the word of God, they forced the people to accept it. After all, nobody wants to go against God do they ? As this grandiose con job spread, over time, it became deeper and deeper entrenched as a religion, and more and more difficult to abolish or reform.
And it spread only because the murderous Muslim marauders who spread it, killed 270 million people around the world to do that. Many, if not most, Muslims living today, trace their ancestry back to people who were non-Muslims and were forced to become Muslims. Hell of a way for someone to call himself a Muslim.

http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2010/07/28/islam-not-a-religion/

http://loganswarning.com/2011/02/19/“allah-is-dead-–-why-islam-is-not-a-religion”/

http://www.islam-watch.org/IW/aboutus.htm

http://avideditor.wordpress.com/200...ion-nor-is-it-a-cult-it-is-a-complete-system/

http://www.halfsigma.com/2011/01/islam-not-a-religion.html

http://beforeitsnews.com/internatio...eligion-but-a-dangerous-ideology-2451630.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Italy

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/27211

http://catchkevin.com/islam-not-protected/

http://www.islamreview.com/articles/Islam_is_not_a_religion.shtml

 

It's subjective. The whole POINT of freedom of religion is that it can't be arbitrarily deemed not a genuine religion or otherwise wrong or evil.

Look at Saudi Arabia.. They've banned non-Islamic religions (Saudi Arabia is the second worst place for human rights in the world, under North Korea)... They simply did the same thing you did.. Just deemed them illegitimate and evil.

Your faith is protected irrespective of outside opinions. That's the point of the freedom of religion. I don't think they wrote that amendment, and then though, unless of course it's a bad religion. They should have said so.

 

Subjective ? Not really. According to Websters New World Dictionary, 4th ed., a "religion" is a system of beliefs WITH A CODE OF ETHICS. Code of ethics ? Pheeeeeww! Give us a break. Islam is a code of UNethics (mass murder, genocide, sex discrimination, wife-beating, pedophilia, slavery, etc) Islam is nowhere close to being a religion, It is 1400 year con job, masquerading as a religion.

 

These things are already illegal. You don't need any additional laws. The only thing the ban would do is outlaw peaceful practice of Islam. Not everybody who worships will go on to commit murder, pedophilia etc.

You don't need to criminalize additional people, merely punish the criminals we already have laws against.

In regards to your definition, "ethics" is a subjective word. People differ on what's right and wrong. That's why the law was set up to criminalize bad behavior itself, not thought crime.

 

Yes, they are illegal. And by allowing Islam to exist, that is tantamount to a de facto legalizing of all these illegal things. In a way you are right. Islam, and all its illegalities are illegal. And unconstitutional to boot (by it's violation of the Supremacy Clause), The real trouble is, with Islam, these illegalites are not being enforced, and free speech notwithsatanding, I think that the preaching of wife-beating, pedophilia, slavery, rape, and all the other vile things advocated in the Koran should be banned. That would entail the cancellation of all buildings operating as mosques or Islamic centers, and converting them into a decent use (animal shelters might be a good idea- or homeless shelters). No sense in demolishing perfectly good buildings.

There is no such thing as a "peaceful practice of Islam". The practice of Islam simply isn't peaceful. It involves numerous types of violence and oppression. It is a cancer that needs to be eradicated.

Ethics a "subjective" word, is it ? How does mass murder, genocide, sex discrimination, rape, wife-beating, animal cruelty (Eid al Adha), pedophilia, slavery, etc, square with your definition of ethics ? All these things square out as OK with Islam - they're all advocated in the Koran, as well as in mosques all across this country. And no, Americans do NOT differ on right or wrong regarding these things. They were DECIDED as WRONG, a long time ago when they were classifed as CRIMES.

You can to excuse Islam is you wish, but no matter which way you turn it, Islam simply is a square peg that DOES NOT FIT into the round hole of America.

 

I see your point in strengthening the private autonomy in contract law, but you´ve to consider that there are different legal principles in the national law that are stringent and can´t be waived in order to secure one party that is on it´s way to enter a contract. While this a bit paternalistic, the national law needs to keep up a minimum standard of those protection principles, nevertheless. This is based upon the thinking, that oftentimes, parties in private law don´t always have the experience to make right decisions or might be influenced in a particular way (especially when it comes to marrying between two islamic people, the woman probably won´t be able to contribute in a 100 percent free manner).

Therefore, it can´t be allowed for two parties to determine that their case will be conducted by a Sharia court. In this case, I go with "Face, Your" as he says:

What happens in British judiciary (and many other wester countries are on their best way to it) is a scandal. Those protection principles I mentioned above will be undermined by letting muslims decide going to Sharia courts. This will shatter national sovereignty, which is fundamental for the existence of every state.

So we have to take care of two things:

Firstly, cases, that are conducted by a national court, mustn´t be treated after islamic law. Hence, the Kansas bill has to be appreciated.

Secondly, the national jurisdiction of western states mustn´t be eroded by giving Sharia courts any form of power in the own country.

 

So then what are all those Muslims locked up for in jail? Certainly we must have thought they broke the law.

We have not outlawed the KKK. Does that mean lynchings are de facto legalized?

There you go.. No need to ban Islam then.

Thought crime.

They're all bad, and it's not just Muslims that do these things. But everyone's idea is a bit different. It doesn't matter what I think. The word does not work in law because it's subjective. If the Constitution wanted to say that only ethical religions were free, they would have. Instead, they didn't waste the ink because they knew the congress could ban unethical things anyway, and free speech and religion and thought, about anything, could be tolerated as long as the law doesn't get broken. Take it further, into violent action, and you crossed the line and you go to jail. If they said "ethical" then that could be skewed in different directions. Take another religion that's not as bad as you think Islam is.. People could still argue it's unethical. Where can you draw the line? How can you stop a peaceful religion being branded unethical just to get banned? They didn't include that clause because they knew it could be abused and it undermined the point of freedom of worship in the first place.

Irrespective of why they omitted the ethics caveat, the fact remains that they did, and therefore immorality, no matter how bad, cannot be banned, no matter how depraved, as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others.

How many mosques have you visited?

There's like a billion Muslims in the world. If all of them were as deranged and psychopathic as you claim, this world would be pure chaos, even without the USA and allies having to destabalize half the Middle East/North Africa.

I live in a Muslim community.. 80% Pakistani, 10% North African, (No Arabs for some reason) 5% Eastern European, 4.99% White British, and me. The shops and businesses I visit are Muslim-run, I have Muslim friends, and live two minutes from the mosque. And I've never had any trouble. If it were as you described, I wouldn't be able to leave my house. But I have no problems. I had worse problems when I lived in the USA in a pure Mexican community.

Speaking of which, you're barking up the wrong tree here. Black and Latino street gangs are your problem. They've already taken over entire communities and run them into decay, and killed many 9/11s worth of innocent Americans. Muslims could NEVER hold a candle to that kind of body count.

 

Except that is not true. Jewish courts every day operate in this country deciding matters of Jewish faith including divorce, which in Orthodox circles is completely controlled by men. That does not in any way stop a Jewish woman from seeking and obtaining civil recourse. The same would be true for Muslim women.

 

The Hebrew and thus Christian text justifies mass murder, genocide, slavery. Can you point to where Islam is different in their traditional text?
Can you show me where Islam support sex discrimination and pedophilia? Please be specific.

 

Which Muslims ? Which lynchings ? I don't see lynchings. I see tall building being knocked down. I see soldiers being murdered in Fort Hood, TX. I see bombings occuring (and many more attempted)

Will yo go tto the families of the victims of Muslim terrorism and tall them that, to their face ? And what do you think they might say ?

Every terrorist act begins with a "thought", and those thoughts are part of the terrorist ACTS.

You seem to think that all speech is free. It's not. There are quite a few examples of non-free speech >> inciting a riot, assault (AKA "fighting words"), slander, libel, sedition (which Islam is), perjury, obscenity laws, etc. All these "cross the line", are illegal, and are not violent actions.

FALSE! In some cases, immorality IS BANNED (ex. possession of child pornography)

HA HA. Maybe you haven't noticed. What you say "would be" IS WHAT IS HAPPENING. Over 20,000 terrorist attacks since 2001.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_(Terrorism)

Now your talking some REAL subjectivity > YOURS. I kind of knew this would be revealed eventually.

 

To say that Christian text justifies mass murder, genocide and slavery is ridiculous. I don't what the old T says, and no I'm not interested in yet another discussion of old T vs New T.

Where Islam supports sex discrimination ? Why do you ask ? Do you really not know of this ? Well here some info on it >>

Remember the picture on the cover of TIME magazine of the Muslim girl with her nose cut off (the picture didn't show that her ears had been cut off too). Mutilation is a common trait among these uncivilized, barbaric savages.

Should we show pictures of the corpses of dead Muslim women, killed by Muslims because they were deemed to have been adulterous ? How about the ones who were raped and then stoned, (Koran 2:223, 4:24. 4:34) because the assumption was they invited the rape to occur. Or the less power that Muslim have in a courtroom compared to Muslim men. Koran verse 2:282 states "It should also be known that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man."

Or the wife-beating that goes on routinely against Muslim women (advocated by Koran 4:34). One could go on and on endlessly about all the severe oppression Muslim women endure.

When girls come of age in Islamic society it is customary for them to undergo a clitorectomy. It is a brutally hideous practice that removes the clitoris in females and robs the female of the right to pleasure. Islamic apologists often will state that the practice is cultural and does not arise from the Sharia; however, when it comes to female genital mutilation Sharia law is very clear in “The Reliance of the Traveller,” e4.3:
"Circumcision is obligatory for both men and women by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is cutting out the clitoris (this is called Hufaad)."

It is safe to state that within Islamic doctrine and culture a woman is the property of the man with no rights of her own. She must obey the man or risk punishment. The punishment can be verbal or it can be violent, both permissible within Islamic law. Many of the women are virtual prisoners within their homes and not allowed to see the light of day. While the practice of chattel would be a felony in the United States, such a practice is sanctioned and practiced today in many parts of Islamic societies throughout the globe. Due to the increase in Islamic immigration to our shores we are now witnessing an increase in arranged child marriages, honor killings, and the practice of chattel in cities with large Islamic populations.
Another similar case of domestic violence occurred when the victim's husband strangled his wife for having borne him a third child and not a son. (L.A. Times, 1/31/12, page 13) It boggles the mind that these practices are permitted to take hold here as our government officials look the other way.

The verses noted above and codified by Sharia makes it abundantly clear that women in Islamic society are enslaved by their masters, and abandoned by Islamic society. It is incredulous that in this present day and age, the enslavement of women is not only practiced, but sanctioned by Islamic clerics throughout the globe. It is incumbent upon us in the West, to not only shed light on these barbaric practices, but to shame those who condone it.

Other looney and oppressive attitudes toward women by Islam are >>

1. THERE ARE MORE WOMEN IN HELL AND LESS IN HEAVEN (Muslim: bk. 36, no. 6596-6601, Siddiqui, Bukhari: vol. 1, bk. 6, no. 301, Khan)

2. WOMEN ARE UNCLEAN (Forgiving. 4:43)

3. WOMEN HAVE A CROOKED NATURE (Bukhari: vol. 7, bk. 62, no. 113, Khan)

4. Etc.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org...pub_detail.asp

http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/womenstatus.htm

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Qu...worth-less.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...4efc_blog.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020102307.html

As for pedophilia >> Koran 65:4

"Conclusion - The Qur'an in verse 33:49 states that no 'Iddah is prescribed for a woman who has not had intimate contact with her husband, but goes on to stipulate the 'Iddah for pre-pubescent girls in verse 65:4, meaning the holiest text of Islam supports marrying and having sex with prepubescent girls. This is definitive proof that the Qur'an endorses pedophilia, something that is considered by many people to be the most serious of all sexual crimes." (WikiIslam > http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Pedophilia_in_the_Qur'an)

 

both do. Sorry about that. You dont get to eject the bad and keep the good. Own your religion if your going to follow it. Dont just be a token believer.

 

I was unaware that there was a movement to adopt Sharia Law in Kansas? While they are at it, the Kansas legislators should ban Alpha Seti VI law in their state.

I guess those boys need something to do until the wheat comes in.