Kansas governor signs 'Shariah bill' to ban Islamic law

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by CarlB, May 26, 2012.

  1. CarlB

    CarlB New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,047
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, another state passes an anti sharia law. They say the last one was overturned, it will be interesting to see if this one survives.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Kansas governor signs 'Shariah bill' to ban Islamic law
    Bill 'makes it clear that Kansas courts will rely exclusively on the laws of our state and our nation'; critics say it is discriminatory


    KANSAS CITY, Kansas — Republican Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed a bill aimed at keeping state courts and agencies from using Islamic or other non-U.S. laws when making decisions, his office said on Friday, drawing criticism from a national Muslim group.


    The law has been dubbed the "Shariah bill" because critics say it targets the Islamic legal code. Shariah, or Islamic law, covers all aspects of Muslim life, including religious obligations and financial dealings. Opponents of state bans say they could nullify wills or legal contracts between Muslims.

    Supporters said the law will reassure foreigners in Kansas that state laws and the U.S. Constitution would protect them. Opponents said it singled out Muslims for ridicule and was unnecessary because American laws prevail on U.S. soil.

    Sherriene Jones-Sontag, a spokeswoman for the governor, said in an e-mail that the bill "makes it clear that Kansas courts will rely exclusively on the laws of our state and our nation when deciding cases and will not consider the laws of foreign jurisdictions."

    South Dakota lawmakers tackle 'Shariah question'

    Legislators supporting the bill said there were many cases around the country where judges or state agencies cited Shariah law in deciding cases, especially involving divorce-related custody and property matters where Islamic code differs from U.S. law.

    'Islam-phobia'
    The Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington denounced the Kansas law and said it is considering legal action.


    About 20 states have considered similar legislation but the Kansas law is the only one signed in recent weeks, council spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said.

    "It's unfortunate the governor chose to pander to the growing Islam-phobia in our society that has led to introduction of similar unconstitutional and un-American legislation in dozens of state legislatures," Hooper said.


    Hooper said legislators have often referred to Shariah law in supporting such legislation, but he said they take the word out of the bill to stave off legal challenges. The Kansas bill does not mention Shariah.

    Federal courts struck down an Oklahoma law voters approved in 2010 that barred state judges from considering Shariah law in making decisions. The court called the law discriminatory.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47574780/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/#.T8EMa1IcVkg
     
  2. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't understand the purpose of these bills. It is already illegal for any form of religion to supercede or overule Federal, State, or local laws.
     
  3. Boston-MA

    Boston-MA Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2011
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would need to understand more about the other cases referenced in the article:

    ..."Legislators supporting the bill said there were many cases around the country where judges or state agencies cited Shariah law in deciding cases, especially involving divorce-related custody and property matters where Islamic code differs from U.S. law."...

    It seems self evident that the laws should be enforced pursuant to Federal, State and local legislation. There must be more to this story than the leftist "Anti-Muslim" rhetoric displayed in this MSNBC story.
     
  4. Zosiasmom

    Zosiasmom New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    18,517
    Likes Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, there are areas like Brooklyn, for example, with a large Hasidic Jew and Muslim community. When dealing with family law many times a Brooklyn judge will need to intervene using court orders that would otherwise be unnecessary in a typical marital arrangement. For example, were a Hasidic Jewish man to grant his wife a divorce in a US court, she could not move to Israel and get married because he is not offering her a religious divorce. So she might petition the court to make this a court order so that she, like he, can marry again.

    Another example might me the Muslim woman who wishes to remain the custodial guardian of her children. In the US most mothers are automatically given this right if the father does not wish to be the ones raising them. Without a judge ordering that the child remain in the mother's case, the husband could take the kids and put them in his mother's house.

    Removing the court's ability to assist in these matters will only hurt women in these religions.
     
  5. Grokmaster

    Grokmaster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    55,099
    Likes Received:
    13,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Screw the "council on islamic relations". They aren't briging their misogynistic crap to our courts. And the problem is...? Muslims "are upset"? BFD.
     
  6. Grokmaster

    Grokmaster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    55,099
    Likes Received:
    13,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What if , what if..?

    The women AND children , in BOTH CASES, are far better served by US courts than by sharia or hasidic law. PERIOD. Great move, Kansas...
     
  7. fiddlerdave

    fiddlerdave Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    19,083
    Likes Received:
    2,706
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They are all bogus.

    One case involves a judge taking into consideration the fact that the couple was married in another country, so the husband could legitimately have mistaken his rights in the USA, an evaluation of the person's understanding of his potential crime as required by US law, in issuing a restraining order.

    And that case was immediately overturned on appeal.

    You can bet these redundant and bigoted laws will be used to make ALL of our lives more miserable with poorly thought out language, and unintended consequences.
     
  8. Grokmaster

    Grokmaster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    55,099
    Likes Received:
    13,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly. Who are we to stand in the way of "honor mutilations", and such? It's just a "cultural difference", and we must be more accepting of this "cultural diversity"...
     
  9. fiddlerdave

    fiddlerdave Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    19,083
    Likes Received:
    2,706
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Honor, or any other, mutilations (of females, at least) are ALREADY illegal!

    FAIL!
     
  10. Zosiasmom

    Zosiasmom New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    18,517
    Likes Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think that you're understanding my post, or else I wrote it wrong. Our courts do fine as it is ruling in disputes. I gave examples. If the courts were empowered to rule in accordance with sharia law then in those instances that I describe above the first woman would never be allowed to marry again because the court could not compel the husband to give her a "get" and the second woman would lose her kids.
     
  11. DonGlock26

    DonGlock26 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Messages:
    47,159
    Likes Received:
    1,179
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because some liberal judges are too fracking stupid to stick to that.


    -
     
  12. micfranklin

    micfranklin Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    17,729
    Likes Received:
    1,887
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nice to see that Brownback has taken so much time out of his life to ban something that was never legal nor an imminent threat to his state to begin with.
     

Share This Page